Report Tuna Fisheries Western Indian Ocean - en

Ref.
Ares(2014)405880 - 19/02/2014
Framework contract MARE/2011/01

Evaluation and impact assessment activities
for DG MARE
Lot 3 – Retrospective and prospective evaluations on the

international dimension of the common fisheries policy
Specific contract n° 7
Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian

Ocean
Final Report
January 2014
WIOR01D
DG MARE 2011/01/Lot 3 – SC7 WIOR01D, January 2014
This report has been prepared with the financial support of the European Commission.
The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
European Commission or of its services.
The content of this report may not be reproduced, or even part thereof, without explicit reference to the
source.
This report must be cited as follows:
POSEIDON, MRAG, NFDS and COFREPECHE, 2014. Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian
Ocean (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7). Brussels, 165 p.
COFREPECHE: 32 rue de Paradis, 75010 Paris, France. info@cofrepeche.fr
Version: Final report - Report ref.: WIOR01D

Date issued: 24 January 2014
Version D Number of pages: 165 (all included)
Organisation
Action First name Surname
Position
Graeme Macfadyen Poseidon (team leader)

Author(s)
Alejandro Anganuzzi Consultant to Poseidon
Peer review John Pearce MRAG
Proof reading Graeme Macfadyen POSEIDON (team leader)
Editing Anna Mees MRAG
Approval Tim Huntington POSEIDON
Validation Vincent Defaux COFREPECHE
Page ii
Consortium: COFREPECHE (leader) – MRAG – NFDS – POSEIDON
Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean – Final Report
Executive summary
Introduction
1. This report provides a regional analysis of the fisheries situation in the western Indian Ocean (WIO), and
informs two separately published ex ante evaluations of possible Fisheries Partnership Agreements
(FPAs) and Protocols between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Kenya (hereafter Kenya),
and the EU and the United Republic of Tanzania (hereafter Tanzania). The report focuses on highly
migratory species, i.e. tuna and tuna-like species.
The western Indian Ocean – environmental characteristics
2. The WIO is characterised by a seasonally reversing monsoon wind system that dominates the ocean
climate north of 25º south, and results in strong northwards and southward winds and currents at
different times of the year. These meso-scale processes bring increased nutrient supply to the surface
and result in biological productivity that is the forage base for the stocks of tuna that occur throughout the
WIO. Primary production rates in the region vary considerably, with a general increase from the south of
the WIO to the north, and from the eastern offshore areas to the western coastal areas. Another
characteristic of the WIO is a relatively shallow thermocline, usually at 50-100 metres (m), which favours
the concentration of fish in a habitat within reach of the fishing fleets.
Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western Indian Ocean
3. The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) is the intergovernmental regional fishery management
organisation, established under the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), with a
mandate to manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. IOTC resolutions and
recommendations relate to: scientific processes (for example, data provision); monitoring, control, and
surveillance (for example, authourised vessels, trade documentation, port state controls and observer
programmes); implementation of an ecosystems approach to fisheries (for example, bycatch-mitigating
measures, protection of vulnerable species); and conservation and management measures (for example,
control of fishing capacity, time-area closures). Two recent important steps have been i) the adoption of
the precautionary approach, indicative interim reference points and a process to define harvest control
rules and refine those reference points, following analyses by the IOTC’s Scientific Committee, and ii)
discussions over potential quota allocation criteria.
4. While IOTC has the responsibility for the management of tuna resources, other regional organisations or
agreements contribute to fisheries governance such as the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries
Commission (SWIOFC), the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA), the Southern African
Development Community (SADC), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the
Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) which a) hosts a number of fisheries projects and fisheries related
activities such as the regional SmartFish programme (ongoing), and b) is implementing an
intergovernmental Regional Action Plan for Fisheries Surveillance and Control (2007-2014) that should
continue with the support of the SmartFish programme.
5. It is the responsibility of IOTC Members to ensure that action is taken to legislate for and implement
IOTC measures at national level, and to report to the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, such as the
Compliance and the Scientific Committees. Weak financial and human capacity in many countries poses
significant challenges, and in particular as regards monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) activities
by countries in the region. Regional and national-level fisheries management can therefore be
considered as ‘work in progress’, with considerable improvements still required.
Page iii
Status of tuna stocks and associated species in the western Indian Ocean
6. None of the key species, skipjack, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna or swordfish, being targeted in the WIO is
either overfished or subject to overfishing1. Albacore, while assessed as not overfished, is subject to
overfishing. The status of a number of species (mostly non-target species, but some that are targeted),
for example sharks, marlins and sailfish, is not well researched or understood, in part because lack of
reported data from the fisheries especially for species not directly under the mandate of IOTC. However,
the most recent analysis has indicated that striped marlin is overfished and subject to overfishing. The
contribution of most coastal States to research is limited by financial and human resource constraints in
most countries in the region, meaning that biological research is often limited unless supported by donor
projects.
Access to fishing zones in the region
7. Access by distant water fishing nation (DWFN) vessels for tuna and tuna-like species in the exclusive
economic zones (EEZs) of WIO States can be granted through a number of different mechanisms, all of
which are used extensively. These include FPAs, bilateral intergovernmental agreements, reflagging,
chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign vessels, and private
commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies and governments in the region.
FPAs are used by the EU to gain access for its vessels with some coastal States in the region. The EU
currently has four active Protocols with Comoros, Madagascar, Mozambique and Seychelles, and a
Protocol with Mauritius that is currently pending completion of EU internal procedures for its entry into
force. All countries/territories in the region allow some form of DWFN vessel activity, with the exception
of the Maldives and India where policy is not to allow fishing by foreign vessels; the British Indian Ocean
Territory, which is a no-take Marine Protected Area; and Somalia, where the lack of a functioning
government in recent years due to the civil war, the risk of piracy, and the lack of a declared EEZ, all
make the licensing situation complex both legally and practically.
8. There are moves towards greater transparency of information related to the costs of access, especially in
the south of the WIO region, although publicly available information is far from universally available.
Investigations completed in the preparation of this report show that costs of access vary significantly,
with differences explained by a number of factors including the size of the EEZ to which access is
provided, the duration of time that fish are likely to spend in respective EEZs and therefore the likely
catches, and the proximity to potential piracy. What is notable is that most purse seine vessels purchase
access to all key fishing zones in the region in advance and on a yearly basis, because of the need to
establish a regional network of fishing opportunities to cover all potential migratory movements of tuna in
the region. Longline vessels tend to fish predominantly in high seas areas, and access to multiple/all
EEZs in the region is less important, although access to some EEZs is nevertheless still significant.
Yearly access fees are typically slightly lower for longline vessels than for purse seine vessels.
Tuna fisheries in the western Indian Ocean
9. Global catches of the main species caught by tuna fisheries in 2011 amounted to 4.6 million tonnes (t)
(FAO, FishStatJ database), with catches in the WIO of around 540 000 t (IOTC, Nominal Catch
Database) representing 12 % of the global total. Yellowfin and skipjack tuna represented 88 % of the
catches made by vessels in the WIO in 2011, with purse seine vessels accounting around 265 000 t
(50 % of total catches). Catches by longline, pole and line, gillnet, and handline vessels as recorded by
IOTC each account for roughly 60-80 000 t, or 11-15 % of total catches, but catches by these fleet
segments are estimated by IOTC for some countries and may be an under-estimate.
1 ‘Overfishing’ is defined as occurring when the fishing intensity is higher than the one that produces maximum sustainable yield
(MSY), while a stock is defined as being ‘overfished’ when its total biomass is less that the biomass that produces MSY.
Page iv
10. The purse seine fleet operating in the WIO numbers 44 vessels, with 22 from the EU, five from Mayotte
(which will become EU vessels as of 1 January 2014 when Mayotte becomes part of the EU), with other
important fleets from Seychelles and Iran. Vessel numbers have declined from 68 in 2005, largely as a
result of piracy in the region, but there are indications that with the improving piracy situation a number of
vessels may return to the WIO in the coming years (although increasing vessel numbers could itself lead
to a renewal of piracy activities). Skipjack and yellowfin tuna are the two main species caught
(representing 91 % of total purse seine catches in 2011), with bigeye tuna providing the balance (along
with very small quantities of albacore (less than 0.5 %)). Vessels rely heavily on the use of fish
aggregating devices (FADs), with around 80 % of the catches by Spanish and Seychelles vessels in
2011 (184 320 t), and 65 % of the catches by French vessels in 2011 (73 399 t), taken around such
floating objects. The increasing use of FADs, developments in their technology, and the use of supply
vessels to assist in the deployment of FADs and assess the amount of fish under them, have all served
to increase the efficiency of the fishing effort per vessel in recent years.
11. The longline fleet operating in the Indian Ocean as a whole is comprised of 440 large-sale deep-freezing
vessels, with Taiwan, Japan and China having the most vessels. Seventy-six vessels (mainly from the
EU, Tanzania and South Africa) have been identified as targeting swordfish when reported to the IOTC
Record of Active Vessels and are likely to operate primarily in the WIO. Other large-sale deep-freezing
vessels may operate in either or both the WIO and the East Indian Ocean (EIO). In addition there are
1 653 smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels in the Indian Ocean as a whole, mostly from Indonesia,
Taiwan and Sri Lanka, but the number of vessels operating in the WIO and EIO cannot be identified with
the data available. A number of coastal countries (for example, Mozambique, Seychelles and Comoros)
have plans to develop their longline fleets. There has been decline in overall effort since the beginning
of 2000s that can be traced to a combination of factors, including declines in catch rates and the
piracy threat in recent years, with a general shift in effort eastwards (a shift in effort that could be
reversed in the future if improvements in the piracy situation are maintained). Different fleets display
marked differences in catch composition: the Taiwan/China and Seychelles fleets (the latter
beneficially owned by Taiwanese interests) target bigeye tuna; the Japanese and Omani fleet targets
yellowfin tuna; the Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet targets swordfish and shark; and the
France/Réunion fleet targets swordfish and tuna.
12. The pole and line fishery is the most traditional of all fisheries in the WIO, originating in the 12th century.
The main fishing country is Maldives, with vessels targeting skipjack tuna (83 % of catches, with the
balance being yellowfin tuna), although there is also a pole and line fishing fleet in western India, and a
South African fishery targeting albacore (principally in the Atlantic and to a lesser extent in the WIO). In
all cases, vessels land fish fresh. Effort in the Maldivian fishery has declined drastically in recent years,
with many pole and line vessels switching to the more profitable handline yellowfin tuna fishery.
13. Gillnet fisheries are concentrated in the northern Arabian Sea and the Somali region, with catches
predominantly of yellowfin tuna (65 % of catches, the balance being mostly skipjack tuna). The
environmental conditions of the northern Arabian Sea bring large yellowfin tuna close to the surface and
fishermen from India, Oman, Pakistan and especially Iran (around 6 000 vessels) have taken advantage
of this seasonal fishery.
14. Handline fisheries are predominantly artisanal and not well documented, but Yemen, Maldives, India and
Comoros all make important contributions to total catches, with yellowfin and skipjack tuna being the
main target species (80 % and 20 % of catches respectively).
15. For all these tuna fisheries/fleets, there is little or no impact on sensitive bottom habitats as they are all
conducted in the upper part of the pelagic water column. The main ecosystem issues with the purse
seine, longline, gillnet, and pole and line fisheries are (i) their impacts on non-target fish species, (ii) the
bycatch of endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species and (iii) their potential to disrupt the
functioning of marine ecosystems as a result of the removal of high trophic level species. Actions
towards mitigation of such impacts have been taken by Member States in the framework of IOTC in the
Page v
form of a number of conservation and management measures developed with the support, and in
cooperation with, other inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions such as BirdLife
International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), and the Indian
Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA). Due to the low selectivity of gillnet
fishing gear, and the potential for gear losses resulting in ‘ghost fishing’, gillnet fisheries are likely to have
the highest level of ecosystem impacts.
Exportation of fisheries products from the western Indian Ocean
16. Given the migratory movement of tuna in the WIO and the pattern of catches throughout the year, and
the position and size of the Seychelles EEZ, Seychelles is well placed to serve as the main regional hub
for the purse seine fleet in the WIO. The vast majority of the frozen purse seine catch in the WIO (around
80 %) is either landed for processing/canning in Seychelles (around 30 % of landings in Seychelles), or
transshipped through Victoria for processing elsewhere in the WIO (around 70 % of landings in
Seychelles), although at some times of the year vessels land product direct to processing plants in
Mauritius, Madagascar and Kenya, for canning or loining. Newly established deep frozen tuna
processing plants with a capacity of 30 000 tonnes in Mauritius will also intensify the visits to Port Louis
of the new generation of purse seiners vessels. Their characteristics enable the storage on board
at -40 °C of dry deep frozen fish, supplied to the processing plants which export fillets, steaks and saku
(frozen sashimi grade) blocks to markets in Asia and Europe. The high levels of processing of purse
seine catch in the region, and the fact that more than 90 % of catches end up in EU markets, is a notable
feature of the purse seine fishery.
17. Asian longline fleets rely heavily on landing product in Port Louis, Mauritius, and it is estimated that 50 %
of longline catch in the WIO is transshipped in Port Louis. Asian frozen catches of yellowfin and bigeye
tuna are predominantly destined for the Asian sashimi market. Albacore may be traded to canneries, or
in the case of ultra-low-temperature freezing vessels, also sold to sashimi markets in Asia. Shark and
swordfish caught by the Asian fleet is also typically transshipped for sale in Asia. The Spanish, UK and
Portuguese longline fleet offloads catch in Durban, South Africa, although at some times of the year
when vessels are fishing in more northern waters, catches may be landed in Diego Suarez, Madagascar,
or in Port Louis, Mauritius. Shark fins (which for EU vessels must be landed attached to carcasses
before separation from the carcasses in port) are traded to Asia (either directly from the port of landing or
through Spain), shark carcasses transshipped back to Europe and sold in southern European countries,
in Eastern Europe and Russia, or in South America through Brazilian buyers, and swordfish carcasses
are transshipped from the WIO to reach EU for subsequent sale, predominantly in Spain, Italy, France
and Greece.
18. Pole and line catches in Maldives are either consumed domestically in fresh form, frozen and exported to
Thai canneries, canned in Maldivian canneries, or processed into ‘Maldive Fish’ (a boiled, smoked and
sun-dried product) for domestic consumption or export (mainly to Sri Lanka). The smaller volumes of
South African catches of albacore are frozen for export to canneries, mainly in the EU.
19. Gillnet tuna catches in Oman, India, Yemen, Pakistan and Iran are predominantly landed in fresh/chilled
form. In Pakistan, India and Iran much of the landed product is destined for tuna canneries in Iran, for
subsequent sales in the Middle East. In Pakistan some quantities are marketed locally in fresh/chilled
form (much of which is consumed by the large Bangladeshi population in Karachi), some is processed to
produce raw material for Korean surimi plants, and small tuna (such as kawakawa and frigate tuna) are
processed in curing yards for export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried form. In Iran it is assumed that catches
not destined for local canneries are consumed locally. Catches from the Yemeni gillnet fleet are destined
for Yemeni canneries or domestic consumption, but with some product purchased by canneries in Iran.
In Oman catches are canned locally, sold in fresh form or smoked locally for local roadside sales.
20. The three significant artisanal handline fisheries in the WIO – in the Maldives, Yemen and Oman – are all
export orientated, with local processing into loins for export primarily in EU and Middle Eastern markets.
Page vi
21. Total EU imports of tuna from countries in the WIO were 135 714 t in 2012, representing just over 20 %
of total EU imports of tuna. Canned imports of tuna from the WIO were 27 % of total EU imports of
canned product, while the WIO provided 18 % of the total tuna loins imported to the EU. Much of these
imports originate from the tuna catches made by EU purse seine vessels (172 824 t in 2011).
22. In the WIO there are three Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) under negotiation. Whilst the
thrust towards regional economic integration of the WIO African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries
has progressed through the Interim EPAs (IEPAs), regional EPAs still remain outstanding, and
negotiations for comprehensive EPAs with all WIO ACP countries are still in progress. By 1 October
2014, the ACP countries that have not ratified interim EPAs (or concluded full EPAs) with the EU will be
delisted from the Market Access Regulation. Least developed countries (LDCs) could then use the
Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement (i.e. 0 % tariff access on tuna) but other more developed
countries would lose their 0 % tariff access.
The EU tuna fleet in the Western Indian Ocean
23. The purse seine fishery in the WIO is dominated by the activities of the EU fleet, which account for 66 %
of total purse seine catches when considering catches by the 22 Spanish and French vessels. While the
benefits created by the longline fleet are not well documented, the economic and social benefits
generated by the activities of the purse seine fleet alone are estimated to be 420+ jobs and
EUR 140 million of value added in the EU, and 4 000+ jobs and EUR 22 – 40 million of value added in
the WIO. Catches in different fishing zones may vary significantly between years for any specific month
given the migration patterns of tuna, but typically around 50 % of total catches are made in high seas
areas, 35 % in the EEZ of Seychelles, with all other fishing zones in the region from Kenya southwards
representing around 1-5 % of total catches. For this reason, a network of fishing opportunities, providing
potential access to fishing zones in all countries/territories, is critical for the fleet. Access to the EEZs of
Kenya and Tanzania are through yearly private access arrangements resulting in a lack of security of
access, while fishing zones within waters of other third countries are accessed through FPAs. Disputed
maritime boundaries in the WIO pose problems for vessels; while vessels have authorisations to fish in
all zones, the presence of ‘grey areas’, means that vessels have to avoid such zones altogether, declare
catches to the administrations of both countries, or run the risk if they do not declare catches and
entry/exit to both administrations of being accused of fishing illegally in one country or the other. All EU
vessels must comply with EU legislation, and with IOTC management and conservation measures. With
ongoing vessel construction, the potential return of some vessels from other oceans to the WIO with the
improving piracy situation (if maintained), and the change in status of Mayotte-flagged vessels to being
EU vessels as of 1 January 2014, the EU fleet could increase to around 40 vessels in the coming years.
24. The contribution of the EU longline fleet to total longline catches in the WIO (around 10 % in 2007-2011),
is far lower than the contribution of the EU purse seine fleet to total purse seine catches in the region.
The EU fleet can be divided into two different fleets based on their target catch: i) Spanish, UK and
Portuguese fleets (20, three and three vessels respectively) targeting swordfish and sharks, and ii) 28
French/Réunion vessels targeting tuna and swordfish. Catches by Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels
are highly concentrated in high seas areas (> 75 % of total volumes), although catches are also made in
both Mozambique and Madagascar. French/Réunion vessels, being smaller in size, tend to fish in, or
close to, Réunion. There are no catches made in Kenya or Tanzania. Vessel numbers are not expected
to increase in the coming years, and given the target catch for Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels of
shark and swordfish found in more southerly areas, a northward shift in activities might be unlikely.
However, such a northward movement cannot be ruled out given historical catches in more northerly
areas, and potential local depletion of swordfish stocks in current fishing grounds that might cause
vessels to move fishing location. It is not thought likely that Réunion vessels, given their smaller size and
operating patterns, would be interested in fishing in locations far from Réunion.
25. A regional FPA may not be practical at the current time. However, individual FPAs/Protocols could
nevertheless be used to push for more regional consistency on issues such as fisheries management,
Page vii
science and compliance, through the use of consistent legal text, and consistent approaches to sectoral
support provided by different FPAs/Protocols.
Conclusions
26. Research and fisheries management capacity in the WIO, along with action at the regional level,
provides the basis for sustainable fisheries management in the region, but improvements in research,
fisheries management, MCS and the functioning of regional institutions are all required. Despite current
weaknesses in such areas, the status of key target tuna species is assessed as generally good, with
only albacore subject to overfishing. However the potential increases in vessel numbers in the coming
years, due to both coastal State fleet development and an expected return by some vessels to the WIO,
could threaten stock status of both target and non-target species unless carefully monitored and
controlled.
27. The EU fleet will remain an important part of total fishing effort in the future, especially the purse seine
fleet, which contributes a significant proportion of total catches. EU vessel activity generates important
economic and social benefits in the EU and the region from the catches landed and processed in the
region, and the beneficial impact of the sectoral support funding provided by the EU as part of
FPAs/Protocols in the region will also continue to be important. For both the EU purse seine and longline
fleets, the ability to move widely throughout the WIO following the migratory patterns of tuna, means that
a regional network of fishing opportunities is critical, although such a network is less important for
longline vessels, which rely more heavily on fishing in high seas areas. Given the fact that Kenya and
Tanzania are the only two fishing zones in the southern part of the WIO that do not have FPAs/Protocols
with the EU, and given existing private access agreements in place for the purse seine fleet in these
countries, FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania could potentially be of interest
to the EU, subject to further evaluation as presented in the two ex ante evaluation reports of possible
FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya and the EU and Tanzania.
Page viii
Résumé
Introduction
1. Ce rapport est une analyse régionale de la situation des pêches dans l’océan Indien occidental (OIO). Il
sert de base pour deux évaluations ex ante, publiées séparément, d’éventuels accords de partenariat dans
le domaine de la pêche (APP) et leurs protocoles entre l’Union européenne (UE) et la République du
Kenya (ci-après dénommée le Kenya), et entre l’UE et la République unie de Tanzanie (ci-après
dénommée la Tanzanie). Le rapport se concentre sur les pêches d’espèces hautement migratoires, soit les
thons et les espèces apparentées.
L’océan Indien occidental – caractéristiques environnementales

2. L’OIO se caractérise par une saisonnalité inverse du système de vent de mousson qui domine le climat
océanique au nord de la latitude 25 ° sud, et se traduit par de forts vents et courants en direction du nord et
du sud à différents moments de l’année. Ces processus de méso-échelle entraînent une accumulation de
nutriments à la surface et se traduisent par une productivité biologique qui constitue la base du fourrage
pour les stocks de thons présents dans l’OIO. Les taux de production primaire varient considérablement
dans la région, avec une augmentation générale du sud de l’OIO vers le nord, et de l’est des zones de
pleine-mer à l’ouest des zones côtières. Une autre caractéristique de l’OIO est une thermocline
relativement peu profonde, habituellement située à 50-100 mètres (m), qui favorise la concentration de
poissons dans un habitat à la portée des flottes de pêche.
Gestion et conservation des thons et des espèces associées dans l’océan Indien occidental
3. La Commission des thons de l’océan Indien (CTOI) est une organisation intergouvernementale régionale
de gestion de la pêche, instituée dans le cadre de l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et
l’agriculture (FAO), mandatée pour gérer les thons et les espèces apparentées dans l'océan Indien. Les
résolutions et les recommandations de la CTOI concernent : les processus scientifiques (par exemple, la
mise à disposition de données) ; l’encadrement, le contrôle et la surveillance (par exemple, les navires
autorisés, la documentation commerciale, les contrôles par l'État du port et les programmes
d’observation) ; la mise en œuvre d’une approche écosystémique des pêches (par exemple, les mesures
d’atténuation des prises accessoires, la protection des espèces vulnérables) ; et les mesures de
conservation et de gestion (par exemple, le contrôle de la capacité de pêche, les fermetures spatio-
temporelles). Récemment, deux étapes importantes ont été franchies :i) l’adoption de l’approche de
précaution, de points de référence indicatifs intermédiaires et d’un processus de définition des règles de
contrôle pour la capture et de précision de ces points de références, basée sur les analyses du comité
scientifique de la CTOI, et ii) des discussions au sujet de critères d’allocation potentielle de quota.
4. Tandis que la CTOI a la responsabilité de gérer les ressources de thons, d’autres organisations ou accords
régionaux contribuent à la gouvernance des pêches tels que la Commission des pêches pour le sud-ouest
de l’océan Indien (CPSOOI), l’Accord relatif aux pêches dans le sud de l'océan Indien (acronyme anglais
SIOFA), la Communauté de développement d'Afrique australe (acronyme anglais SADC), le Nouveau
Partenariat pour le Développement de l'Afrique (acronyme anglais NEPAD), et la Commission de l’océan
Indien (COI) qui a) anime un certain nombre de projets et d’activités relatifs au domaine de la pêche tels
que le programme régional SmartFish (en cours), et b) met en œuvre un Plan d’action régional
intergouvernemental pour le contrôle et la surveillance des pêches (2007-2014) qui devrait continuer avec
l’appui du programme SmartFish.
5. Il est de la responsabilité des membres de la CTOI de s’assurer qu’une action est menée afin de légiférer
et de mettre en œuvre les mesures de la CTOI au niveau national, et de la rapporter à la Commission et à
ses organes subsidiaires, tels que le Comité scientifique et le Comité d’application. Une faible capacité
financière et humaine au sein de plusieurs pays pose d’importants défis, et en particulier en ce qui
concerne les activités de suivi, de contrôle et de surveillance (SCS) par chaque pays dans la région. La
Page ix
gestion des pêches au niveau régional et national peut donc être considérée comme un « travail en
cours », avec des améliorations considérables encore requises.
État des stocks de thon et espèces apparentées dans l’océan Indien occidental
6. Aucune des espèces clés, le listao, l’albacore, le thon obèse ou l’espadon, ciblées dans l’OIO n’a été
surpêchée ou fait l’objet de surpêche2. Bien qu’évalué comme non surpêché, le germon fait l’objet de
surpêche. L’état d’un certain nombre d’espèces (principalement des espèces non ciblées bien que
certaines le soient), par exemple des requins, marlins et voiliers indopacifiques, n’est pas bien étudié ou
compris, en partie en raison de manque de données transmises sur ces pêches surtout pour les espèces
non directement sous le mandat de la CTOI. Concernant le marlin rayé, l’analyse la plus récente a indiqué
cependant qu’il était surpêché et faisait l’objet de surpêche. La contribution de la plupart des États côtiers à
la recherche est limitée par des contraintes financière et humaine dans la plupart des pays de la région,
ainsi la recherche biologique est souvent limitée, à moins qu’elle soit soutenue par des projets de
donateurs.
Accès aux zones de pêches de la région
7. L’accès aux navires de pêche d’un pays pratiquant la pêche hauturière (PPPH) aux thons et aux espèces
apparentées présents dans les zones économiques exclusives (ZEE) des États de l’OIO peut être accordé
selon différents mécanismes, tous très largement utilisés. Ils comprennent des APP, des accords
bilatéraux intergouvernementaux, le changement de pavillon, de l’affrètement, des coentreprises ou des
arrangements similaires entre des États de l’OIO et des navires étrangers, et des accords commerciaux
privés entre des associations étrangères ou des sociétés et des gouvernements de la région. Les APP sont
utilisés par l’UE pour l’accès de ses navires auprès de certains États côtiers de la région. L’UE possède
actuellement quatre protocoles actifs, avec les Comores, Madagascar, le Mozambique et les Seychelles.
Un protocole avec Maurice est actuellement dans l’attente de l’achèvement des procédures internes de
l’UE pour son entrée en vigueur. Tous les pays/territoires de la région autorisent l’activité de navire de
PPPH sous différents arrangements, à l’exception des Maldives et de l’Inde où la politique est de ne pas
autoriser la pêche par des navires étrangers, du Territoire britannique de l’océan Indien, qui est une aire
marine protégée, et de la Somalie, où le manque d’un gouvernement opérationnel ces dernières années
causé par la guerre civile, le risque de piraterie, et l’absence d’une ZEE déclarée, rendent complexe
l’attribution de licences d’un point de vue légal comme pratique.
8. Des mesures ont été prises afin d’améliorer la transparence des informations relatives aux coûts d’accès,
notamment pour le sud de la région de l’OIO, bien que les informations publiques disponibles soient loin de
l’être globalement. Les enquêtes menées lors de la préparation de ce rapport montrent que les coûts
d’accès varient significativement, avec des différences expliquées par un certain nombre de facteurs
comprenant la superficie des ZEE pour lesquelles l’accès est pourvu, la durée probable que les poissons
passent dans les ZEE respectives et par conséquent les volumes de captures probables, et la proximité
avec une potentielle piraterie. Fait notable, la plupart des navires à senne coulissante achètent à l’avance
un accès pour toutes les zones de pêche clés de la région et sur une base annuelle afin d’instituer un
réseau régional de possibilités de pêche pour couvrir l’ensemble des mouvements migratoires des thons
dans la région. Les palangriers ont tendance à pêcher principalement en haute mer, et leur accès à de
multiples/toutes les ZEE de la région est moins important, bien que leur accès à certaines ZEE soit encore
significatif. Les droits d’accès annuels sont typiquement légèrement plus bas pour les palangriers que pour
les navires à senne coulissante.
2On parle de « surpêche » lorsque l’effort de pêche devient supérieur à celui permettant de produire le rendement maximal durable
(RMD). Un stock est défini comme « surpêché » lorsque sa biomasse totale est moins importante que la biomasse produite au RMD.
Page x
Pêches thonières dans l’océan Indien occidental

9. Les captures globales des principales espèces capturées par les pêches thonières en 2011 s’élevaient à
4,6 millions de tonnes (FAO, base de données FishStatJ), avec des captures dans l’OIO aux alentours de
540 000 t (CTOI, base de données de captures nominales) représentant 12 % du total global. L’albacore et
le listao représentaient 88 % des captures réalisées par les navires dans l’OIO en 2011, avec des navires à
senne coulissante comptabilisant 265 000 t (50 % des captures totales). Les captures des palangriers,
canneurs, bateaux de pêche à filets maillants et avec ligne à la main telles qu’enregistrées par la CTOI
s’élèvent chacune environ à 60-80 000 t, ou 11-15 % des captures totales, mais les captures de ces
segments de flotte sont estimées par la CTOI pour certains pays et sont peut-être une sous-estimation.
10. La flotte de senneurs opérant dans l’OIO compte 44 navires dont 22 sont de l’UE, 5 de Mayotte (qui
deviendront des navires de l’UE dès le 1er janvier 2014 quand Mayotte fera partie de l’UE), avec d’autres
flottilles importantes provenant des Seychelles et de l’Iran. De 68 navires en 2005, le nombre a diminué
depuis, principalement en raison de la piraterie dans la région, mais des informations indiquent qu’avec
l’amélioration de la situation de la piraterie un certain nombre de navires reviendrait dans l’OIO dans les
années à venir (bien que l’augmentation du nombre de navires puisse elle-même mener à une reprise des
activités de piraterie). Le listao et l’albacore sont les deux principales espèces capturées (représentant
91 % des captures totales des senneurs en 2011), le restant étant du thon obèse (avec de très petites
quantités de germon (moins de 0,5 %)). Les navires recourent fortement à l’usage de dispositifs de
concentration de poissons (DCP), pour environ 80 % des captures réalisées par les navires espagnols et
seychellois en 2011 (184 320 t), et 65 % des captures réalisées par les navires français en 2011 (73 399 t)
ont été effectuées à l’aide de tels objets flottants. L’usage croissant de DCP, les développements de leur
technologie, et l’utilisation de navires d’appui pour aider au déploiement des DCP et évaluer la quantité de
poissons en-dessous de ces-derniers, ont à eux tous contribué à accroitre l’efficacité de l’effort de pêche
par navire dans les dernières années.
11.La flotte de palangriers opérant dans sa totalité dans l’océan Indien est constituée de 440 grands navires
surgélateurs, appartenant pour la majorité à Taiwan, au Japon et à la Chine. Soixante-seize navires
(principalement de l’UE, de la Tanzanie et de l’Afrique du sud) ont été identifiés comme ciblant l’espadon
d’après les enregistrements des navires actifs de la CTOI et sont susceptibles d’opérer principalement
dans l’OIO. D’autres grands navires surgélateurs peuvent opérer soit dans l’OIO soit dans l’est de l’océan
Indien (EOI). En outre, il y a 1 653 petits palangriers thoniers présents dans leur totalité dans l’océan
Indien, provenant majoritairement de l’Indonésie, de Taiwan et du Sri Lanka, mais la part du nombre de
navires opérant dans l’OIO et dans l’EOI ne peut être identifiée avec les données disponibles. Un certain
nombre de pays côtiers (par exemple, le Mozambique, les Seychelles et les Comores) programme
d’accroître leur flottille de palangriers. Depuis le début des années 2000, le déclin de l’effort général peut
être expliqué par une combinaison de facteurs, comprenant la baisse des taux de captures et la menace
pirate de ces dernières années, avec un déplacement général de l’effort en direction de l’est (un
déplacement de l’effort qui pourrait s’inverser dans le futur si les améliorations de la situation de la piraterie
continuent). Différentes flottilles affichent de fortes disparités dans la composition de leur capture : les
flottilles de Taiwan/Chine et des Seychelles (dont cette dernière a pour propriété véritable des intérêts
taiwanais) ciblent le thon obèse, les flottilles japonaises et d’Oman ciblent l’albacore, les flottilles
espagnole, britannique et portugaise ciblent l’espadon et le requin, et la flottille de la France/Réunion cible
l’espadon et le thon.
12.La pêche à la canne est la plus traditionnelle de toutes les pêches de l’OIO, datant du 12e siècle. Le
principal pays pratiquant ce type de pêche est les Maldives, avec des navires ciblant le listao (83 % des
captures, le restant étant de l’albacore), bien qu’il y ait encore une flottille de canneurs dans l’ouest de
l’Inde, et une pêcherie de germon en Afrique du sud (principalement dans l’Atlantique et dans une moindre
mesure dans l’OIO). Dans tous les cas, les navires débarquent du poisson frais. L’effort de pêche des
Maldives a décliné sévèrement ces dernières années, avec de nombreux canneurs passant à la pêche
d’albacore à la ligne à la main, plus profitable.
Page xi
13.Les pêches à filet maillant sont concentrées dans le nord de la mer d’Oman et dans la région somalienne,
avec des captures d’albacores prédominantes (65 % des captures, le restant étant principalement du
listao). Les conditions environnementales du nord de la mer d’Oman apportent de grands albacores à la
surface et les pêcheurs d’Inde, d’Oman, du Pakistan et plus particulièrement de l’Iran (environ 6 000
navires) ont tiré parti de la saisonnalité de cette pêcherie.
14.Les pêches à la ligne à la main sont principalement artisanales et peu documentées, mais le Yémen, les
Maldives, l’Inde et les Comores contribuent tous fortement aux captures totales, l’albacore et le listao étant
les principales espèces ciblées (représentant respectivement 80 % et 20 % des captures).
15.Pour toutes ces pêches thonières/flottilles, il existe un faible impact voire aucun sur les habitats vulnérables
des fonds marins puisqu’elles sont toutes conduites dans la partie supérieure de la colonne d’eau
pélagique. Les principaux enjeux écosystémiques des pêches à la senne coulissante, à la palangre, au filet
maillant et à la ligne à la main sont (i) leurs impacts sur les espèces non-ciblées, (ii) la prise accessoire
d’espèces en voie de disparition, menacées ou protégées et (iii) leur potentiel de perturbation du
fonctionnement des écosystèmes marins avec pour conséquence la disparition d’espèces du niveau
trophique supérieur. Des actions ont été menées par des États membres de la CTOI afin d’atténuer de tels
impacts sous la forme d’un certain nombre de mesures de gestion et de conservation développées avec le
soutien, et en coopération avec, d’autres institutions non-gouvernementales et inter-gouvernementales
telles que BirdLife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), et
the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA).Du fait de la faible sélectivité
des engins de pêche avec filet maillant, et du potentiel pour les engins perdus de réaliser une « pêche
fantôme », les pêches au filet maillant sont susceptibles d’avoir un fort impact sur les écosystèmes.
Exportation des produits des pêches réalisées dans l’ouest de l’océan Indien
16. Étant donné le mouvement migratoire des thons dans l’OIO et la tendance des captures sur l’année, ainsi
que la position et la taille de la ZEE des Seychelles, l’archipel est bien placé pour servir de principal centre
régional pour la flottille de senneurs dans l’OIO. La vaste majorité des captures congelées réalisées par les
senneurs dans l’OIO (aux alentours de 80 %) est débarquée aux Seychelles aussi bien pour être
transformée que mise en conserves (aux alentours de 30 % des débarquements aux Seychelles), ou
transbordée à Victoria pour être transformée ailleurs dans l’OIO (aux alentours de 70 % des
débarquements effectués aux Seychelles), bien qu’à certains moments de l’année, des navires débarquent
du produit directement dans des usines de transformation à Maurice, à Madagascar et au Kenya pour être
mis en conserve ou couper en longes. Les nouvelles usines de transformation de thon surgelé, construites
à Maurice et d’une capacité de 30 000 tonnes, intensifieront les visites de la nouvelle génération de
senneurs à Port Louis. Les caractéristiques de ses navires permettent le stockage à bord de thon par
congélation rapide à sec à 40 °C, fournis par la suite aux usines de transformation qui exportent des
longes, steaks et blocs saku (pour du sashimi congelé) vers les marchés d’Asie et d’Europe. Le haut
niveau de transformation des captures réalisées par les senneurs dans la région, et le fait que plus de
90 % des captures se retrouve sur des marchés de l’UE, est une caractéristique notable des pêches à la
senne coulissante.
17. Les flottes asiatiques de palangriers ont massivement recours au débarquement à Port-Louis, à Maurice,
et il est estimé que 50 % des captures des palangriers dans l’OIO est transbordé à Port-Louis. Les
captures asiatiques surgelées d’albacore et de thon obèse sont principalement destinées au marché
asiatique de sashimi. Le germon est probablement commercialisé auprès de conserveries, ou dans le cas
de navires congélateurs à ultra basse température, également vendu sur des marchés de sashimi en Asie.
Le requin et l’espadon capturés par la flotte asiatique sont aussi typiquement transbordés pour être vendus
en Asie. Les flottilles espagnole, britannique et portugaise de palangriers déchargent leurs captures à
Durban, en Afrique du sud, bien qu’à certains moments de l’année lorsque les navires pêchent dans des
eaux plus au nord, des captures puissent être débarquées à Diego Suarez, à Madagascar, ou à Port-Louis,
à Maurice. Les ailerons de requins (qui, pour les navires de l’UE, doivent être débarqués encore liés aux
carcasses avant leur séparation de la carcasse une fois au port) sont commercialisées en Asie (soit
Page xii
directement du port de débarquement soit en transitant par l’Espagne). Les carcasses de requins sont
transbordées pour retourner en Europe et sont vendus dans les pays du sud de l’Europe, de l’est de
l’Europe et en Russie, ou en Afrique du sud par des acheteurs brésiliens, et les carcasses d’espadons sont
transbordées dans l’OIO et destinées aux marchés de l’UE pour une vente principalement en Espagne, en
Italie, en France et en Grèce.
18. Les captures des canneurs aux Maldives sont soit consommées fraîches localement, soit surgelées et
exportées vers des conserveries thaïlandaises, soit mises en conserve dans des conserveries
maldiviennes, soit transformées en Maldive Fish (un produit séché, fumé et bouilli) pour la consommation
domestique ou l’export (principalement vers le Sri Lanka). Les captures sud-africaines de germon sont
moins volumineuses et surgelées pour être exportées vers des conserveries, principalement de l’UE.
19. Les captures des thoniers à filet maillant de l’Oman, de l’Inde, du Yémen, du Pakistan et de l’Iran sont
principalement débarquées sous forme fraîche ou réfrigérée. Au Pakistan, en Inde et en Iran la plupart des
produits débarqués est destinée aux conserveries de thon en Iran, pour des ventes ultérieures dans le
Moyen-Orient. Au Pakistan certaines quantités sont commercialisées localement sous forme fraîche ou
réfrigérée (beaucoup sont consommées par l’importante population bangladaise de Karachi), une partie est
transformée afin de produire de la matière première pour les usines coréennes de surimi, et les petits thons
(tels que la thonine orientale et l’auxide) sont transformés dans des fumoirs pour être exportés au Sri
Lanka sous forme salée/séchée. En Iran il est admis que les captures non destinées aux conserveries
locales sont consommées localement. Les captures de la flottille à filets maillants du Yémen sont destinées
aux conserveries du Yémen ou à la consommation domestique, mais avec une partie du produit acheté par
des conserveries en Iran. À Oman, les captures sont mises en conserves localement, vendues fraiches ou
fumées localement pour les ventes locales en bord de route.
20. Les trois plus importantes pêches artisanales à la ligne à la main dans l’OIO – aux Maldives, au Yémen et
à Oman – sont toutes tournées vers l’export, avec une transformation locale en longes pour l’export
prioritairement vers les marchés de l’UE et du Moyen-Orient.
21. Les importations totales de thons de l’UE provenant de pays de l’OIO s’élevaient à 135 714 t en 2012,
représentant un peu plus de 20 % du total des importations de thons de l’UE. Les importations de
conserves de thon de l’OIO représentaient 27 % du total des importations de conserves de l’UE, tandis que
l’OIO fournissait 18 % du total des importations de longes de thon à l’UE. Beaucoup de ces importations
proviennent des captures de thons réalisées par les senneurs de l’UE (172 824 t en 2011).
22. Trois accords de partenariat économique (APE) sont en négociation dans l’OIO. Bien que l’évolution vers
une intégration économique régionale des pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP) de l’OIO ait
progressé grâce aux APE intermédiaires (APEI), les APE régionaux restent encore en suspens, et des
négociations pour des APE complets avec tous les pays ACP de l’OIO sont encore en cours. A partir du 1 er
octobre 2014, les pays ACP qui n’auront pas ratifié d’APE intermédiaires (ou conclu les APE complets)
avec l’UE seront retirés de la liste du règlement sur l’accès au marché. Les pays les moins développés
(PMD) pourront ensuite utiliser l’initiative « Tous sauf les armes » (TSA) (c’est-à-dire l’accès au thon au
tarif de 0 %) mais d’autres pays plus développés pourraient perdre leur accès au tarif 0 %.
La flotte thonière de l’UE dans l’océan Indien occidental
23. La pêche à la senne coulissante dans l’OIO est dominée par les activités de la flotte de l’UE, qui
représente 66 % du total des captures réalisées par les senneurs en considérant les captures des 22
navires espagnols et français. Alors que les bénéfices créés par la flotte de palangriers sont peu connus,
les bénéfices économiques et sociaux générés par les activités de la flotte de senneurs seule sont estimés
à 420 emplois et 140 millions d’euros de valeur ajoutée dans l’UE, et à 4 000 emplois et 22 – 40
millions d’euros de valeur ajoutée dans l’OIO. Les captures dans les différentes zones de pêche peuvent
varier significativement d’une année sur l’autre par mois étant donné les tendances de migration des thons,
mais généralement environ 50 % des captures totales sont réalisées en haute mer, 35 % dans la ZEE des
Seychelles, avec toutes les autres zones de pêche de la région du Kenya vers le sud représentant environ
Page xiii
1-5 % des captures totales. Pour cette raison, un réseau de possibilités de pêche, permettant un accès
potentiel à des zones de pêche dans tous les pays/territoires, est indispensable pour la flotte. Les accès
aux ZEE du Kenya et de la Tanzanie sont accordés au travers d’accords privés annuels et entraînent un
manque de sécurité, contrairement aux zones de pêche au sein d’autres pays tiers accessibles au moyen
d’APP. La contestation des frontières maritimes dans l’OIO représente un problème pour les navires, alors
qu’ils possèdent des licences pour pêcher dans toutes les zones, la présence de zones d’ombre, signifie
que les navires doivent éviter de pêcher dans de telles zones, déclarer leurs captures aux administrations
des deux pays ou prendre le risque s’ils ne déclarent pas leurs captures ou leur entrée/sortie aux deux
administrations d’être accusés de pêcher illégalement dans l’un des deux pays. Tous les navires de l’UE
doivent se conformer à la législation de l’UE, ainsi qu’aux mesures de gestion et de conservation de la
CTOI. Avec la construction de navires en cours, le retour potentiel de certains navires dans les eaux de
l’OIO où la situation de la piraterie s’améliore (si elle se maintient), et le changement de statut des navires
battant pavillon de Mayotte en navires battant pavillon de l’UE à partir du 1er janvier 2014, la flotte de l’UE
pourrait s’accroître d’environ 40 navires dans les années à venir.
24. La contribution de la flottille de palangriers de l’UE aux captures de la totalité des palangriers de l’OIO (aux
alentours de 10 % entre 2007 et 2011), est beaucoup plus faible que celle de la flottille de senneurs de
l’UE aux captures de la totalité des senneurs de la région. La flotte de l’UE peut être divisée en deux
flottilles distinctes selon leurs captures cibles : i) les flottilles espagnole, britannique et portugaise
(comprenant respectivement 20, trois et trois navires) ciblant l’espadon et le requin, et ii) les 28 navires
français/réunionnais ciblant le thon et l’espadon. Les captures réalisées par les navires espagnols, du
Royaume-Uni et portugais sont fortement concentrées dans les zones en haute mer (pour plus de 75 %
des volumes totaux), bien que des captures soient également réalisées dans le Mozambique et à
Madagascar. Les navires français/réunionnais, de taille plus faible, ont tendance à pêcher à, ou près de, la
Réunion. Aucune capture n’est réalisée au Kenya ou en Tanzanie. Un accroissement du nombre de
navires n’est pas attendu dans les années à venir, et étant donné les captures cibles de requins et
d’espadons trouvées par les navires espagnols, du Royaume-Uni et portugais dans des zones plus au sud,
un déplacement des activités vers le nord est peu probable. Cependant, un tel mouvement vers le nord ne
peut pas être exclu étant donné l’historique des captures réalisées dans des zones plus au nord, et le
potentiel épuisement local des stocks d’espadon dans les zones de pêche actuelles qui pourrait engendrer
le déplacement des navires vers un autre lieu de pêche. Il semble peu probable que les navires
réunionnais, en raison de leur petite taille et de leurs modes de fonctionnement, soient intéressés à pêcher
dans des lieux éloignés de la Réunion.
25. À l’heure actuelle, un APP régional s’avère difficile à mettre en pratique. Néanmoins, des APP/protocoles
individuels pourraient être utilisés afin de promouvoir une plus grande cohérence régionale pour les
questions relatives à la gestion, à la science et au respect des mesures des pêches, à travers l’utilisation
d’un texte légal standard, et d’approches similaires au sein de l’appui sectoriel fournie par les différents
APP/ Protocoles.
Conclusions
26. La recherche et les capacités de gestion des pêches dans l’OIO, en parallèle d’une action au niveau
régional, fournissent la base pour une gestion durable des pêches dans la région, mais des améliorations
dans la recherche, la gestion des pêches, le SCS et le fonctionnement régional des institutions sont
exigées. En dépit des faiblesses actuelles dans ces domaines, le statut des principales espèces de thons
ciblées a été évalué comme globalement bon, le germon étant la seule espèce faisant l’objet d’une
surpêche. Cependant, les potentielles augmentations du nombre de navires dans les années à venir, en
raison du développement de la flottille des États côtiers et du retour attendu de certains navires dans l’OIO,
pourraient menacer le statut des stocks des espèces cibles comme non-cibles à moins de soigneusement
les encadrer et les contrôler.
Page xiv
27. Dans le futur, la flotte de l’UE participera encore à un niveau important à l’effort de pêche global,
particulièrement la flottille de senneurs, qui contribue pour une part conséquente aux captures totales.
L’activité des navires de l’UE génère des bénéfices économiques et sociaux substantiels dans l’UE et la
région où sont débarquées et transformées les captures, l’impact bénéfique de l’appui sectoriel financé par
le budget de l’UE au travers des APP/Protocoles de la région restera également significatif. Pour les flottes
de senneurs et de palangriers de l’UE, la capacité à se déplacer librement dans tout l’OIO afin de suivre les
mouvements migratoires des thons, signifie qu’un réseau régional de possibilités de pêche est crucial, bien
qu’un tel réseau ait moins d’importance pour les palangriers, qui dépendent beaucoup de la pêche en
haute mer. Le Kenya et la Tanzanie étant les deux seules zones de pêche du sud de l’OIO qui ne
possèdent pas d’APP/Protocoles avec l’UE, et étant donné l’existence d’accords privés pour l’accès des
flottilles de senneurs dans ces pays, des APP/Protocoles entre l’UE et le Kenya et la Tanzanie pourraient
être potentiellement intéressants pour l’UE, s’ils sont soumis à une évaluation plus poussée telle que
présentée dans les deux rapports d’évaluation ex ante pour de possibles APP/Protocoles entre l’UE et le
Kenya et entre l’UE et la Tanzanie.
Page xv
Resumen
Introducción
1. Este informe presenta un análisis regional de la situación de la pesca en el océano Índico occidental (OIO)
y sirve de base a dos evaluaciones ex ante de posibles acuerdos de asociación en el sector pesquero
(AAP) y protocolos celebrados entre la Unión Europea (UE) y la República de Kenia (a continuación,
Kenia), y entre la UE y la República Unida de Tanzania (a continuación, Tanzania). El informe se centra en
las especies altamente migratorias, es decir, el atún y las especies afines.
El océano Índico occidental (OIO) – características medioambientales
2. El OIO se caracteriza por un sistema de vientos estacionales y cambiantes ligados al monzón que domina
el clima oceánico al norte de la latitud 25° sur. Este sistema crea fuertes vientos y corrientes hacia el norte
y hacia el sur en diferentes épocas del año. Estos procesos de meso-escala provocan un aumento de
nutrientes disponibles a la superficie y una productividad biológica que es la base de la alimentación para
las poblaciones de atunes que se encuentran en el OIO. Las tasas de producción primaria en la zona
varían considerablemente, con un aumento general desde el sur del OIO hacia el norte, y desde las áreas
de alta mar del este hacia las zonas costeras del oeste. Otra característica del OIO es una termoclina
relativamente poco profunda, por lo general 50-100 metros (m), lo cual favorece la concentración de peces
en un hábitat al alcance de las flotas pesqueras.
Gestión y conservación de los túnidos y especies afines en el océano Índico occidental
3. La Comisión del Atún para el Océano Índico (CAOI) es la organización intergubernamental regional de
gestión pesquera, establecida en el marco de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y
la Alimentación (FAO) con el mandato de gestionar los túnidos y las especies afines en el océano Índico.
Las resoluciones y recomendaciones de la CAOI son relativas a: procesos científicos (por ejemplo, el
suministro de datos); el seguimiento, control y vigilancia (por ejemplo, buques autorizados, documentación
comercial, controles del Estado del puerto y programas de los observadores); la aplicación de un enfoque
ecosistémico de la pesca (por ejemplo, medidas de reducción de las capturas accesorias, protección de
especies vulnerables); y las medidas de conservación y gestión (por ejemplo, el control de la capacidad de
pesca, vedas espacio-temporales). Dos medidas importantes decididas recientemente han sido i) la
adopción del criterio de precaución, de unos puntos provisorios indicativos de referencia y de un proceso
de definición de las reglas de control de capturas y de ajuste de los puntos de referencia tras el análisis
por el Comité científico de la CAOI, y ii) las discusiones sobre posibles criterios de asignación de las
cuotas.
4. Mientras la CAOI tiene la responsabilidad de gestionar los recursos de túnidos, otras organizaciones
regionales o acuerdos contribuyen a la gobernanza de la pesca tales como la Comisión de Pesca para el
Océano Índico Sudoccidental (SWIOFC en inglés), el Acuerdo de Pesca para el Océano Índico Meridional
(SIOFA en inglés), la Comunidad para el Desarrollo del África Meridional (SADC en inglés), la Nueva
Alianza para el Desarrollo de África (NEPAD en inglés). La Comisión del Océano Índico (COI) organiza
una serie de proyectos y actividades relacionadas a la pesca como el programa regional Smartfish (en
curso). También está encargada de aplicar el plan regional para la vigilancia de la pesca (2007-2014) que
debería continuar con el apoyo del programa Smartfish.
5. Es responsabilidad de los miembros de la CAOI asegurarse de que se adopten medidas para legislar e
implementar las decisiones de la CAOI a nivel nacional e informar a la Comisión y a sus órganos
subsidiarios tales como los Comités de cumplimiento y científico. Los escasos recursos financieros y
humanos en muchos países plantea retos importantes, en particular en lo relativo a las actividades de
supervisión, control y vigilancia por parte de los países de la zona. Por lo tanto, la gestión de las
pesquerías a nivel nacional y regional puede considerarse como una « operación en curso », con
considerables mejoras necesarias.
Page xvi
Estado de las poblaciones de atunes y especies asociadas en el océano Índico occidental

6. Ninguna de las especies principales de atún, listado, rabil, patudo, o pez espada objetivo en el OIO está
sobreexplotada o está en peligro de sobrepesca3. El atún rabil, pese a una evaluación que afirma que no
está sobreexplotado, está sujeto a la sobrepesca. El estado de ciertas especies (en su mayoría especies
no objetivo, aunque algunas sí lo sean) como por ejemplo tiburones, marlines y peces vela, no se investiga
o entiende correctamente, en parte por la falta de datos comunicados acerca de las pesquerías, en
particular especies que no recaen directamente bajo el mandato de la CAOI. Sin embargo, los análisis más
recientes han indicado que el marlín rayado está sobreexplotado y está sujeto a la sobrepesca. La
contribución de la mayoría de los Estados ribereños a la investigación es limitada por su escasez de
recursos financieros y humanos, lo que significa que la investigación biológica a menudo es limitada, a
menos que esté financiada por proyectos de donantes.
Acceso a las zonas de pesca en la región
7. El acceso de buques provenientes de países de pesca a larga distancia (PPLD) para la captura de túnidos
y especies afines en las zonas económicas exclusivas (ZEE) de los Estados del OIO puede ser concedido
a través de una serie de diferentes mecanismos que se utilizan ampliamente. Estos mecanismos incluyen
los AAP, los acuerdos intergubernamentales bilaterales, el cambio de pabellón, el alquiler, las empresas
conjuntas o acuerdos similares entre los Estados del OIO y buques extranjeros, y los acuerdos
comerciales privados entre asociaciones o empresas extranjeras y los gobiernos de la zona. Los AAP son
utilizados por la UE para obtener acceso para sus buques en las aguas de algunos Estados ribereños de
la zona. La UE cuenta con cuatro protocolos activos con Comoras, Madagascar, Mozambique y
Seychelles. Un protocolo con Mauricio está actualmente en espera de finalización de los procedimientos
internos de la UE para su entrada en vigor. Todos los países/territorios de la zona permiten algún tipo de
actividad barcos de PPLD, a excepción de Maldivas y de la India, donde la política es no permitir la pesca
de buques extranjeros; del Territorio Británico del Océano Índico, que es un Área Marina Protegida de
veda total ; y Somalia, donde la falta de un gobierno en funcionamiento en los últimos años debido a la
guerra civil, al riesgo de la piratería y a la falta de una ZEE declarada hacen que la obtención de licencias
sea complicada tanto a nivel práctico como legal.
8. Hay avances hacia una mayor transparencia de la información relativa a los costes de acceso,
especialmente en el sur de la región del OIO, aunque la información pública está lejos de estar
universalmente disponible. Las investigaciones realizadas durante la preparación de este informe
muestran que los costes de acceso varían significativamente, con diferencias que se explican a través de
una serie de factores que incluyen el tamaño de la ZEE a la que se concede el acceso, la duración del
período de tiempo durante el que se prevé que los peces pasen en las respectivas zonas económicas
exclusivas y, por tanto, las posibles capturas y la proximidad a zonas con riesgos de piratería. Es notable
que la mayoría de los cerqueros compra el acceso a todas las zonas de pesca clave en este área de
antemano y anualmente, debido a la necesidad de establecer una red regional de posibilidades de pesca
para cubrir todos los movimientos migratorios potenciales del atún en la región. Los palangreros tienden a
pescar sobre todo en zonas de alta mar, el acceso a múltiples/todas las ZEE de la región es menos
importante, aunque sigue siendo significativo. Las tarifas de acceso anuales para los palangreros son por
lo general ligeramente inferiores a las de los cerqueros.
La pesca de túnidos en el océano Índico occidental
9. Las capturas mundiales de las principales especies por las pesquerías de túnidos en 2011 ascendieron a
4,6 millones de toneladas (t) (FAO, base de datos FishStatJ), con capturas en el OIO de alrededor de
3 La sobreexplotación se define como una situación en la que la intensidad de la pesca es más alta que el nivel que produce el
rendimiento máximo sostenible (RMS). Se dice que una población de peces es objeto de sobrepesca cuando su biomasa total es
inferior a la biomasa que produce el RMS.
Page xvii
540 000 t (CAOI, base de datos de capturas nominales) que representan el 12 % del total mundial. El rabil
y el listado representaron el 88 % de las capturas realizadas por buques en el OIO en 2011, con 265 000 t
capturadas por cerqueros (el 50 % de las capturas totales). Las capturas realizadas por palangreros,
cañeros, buques con redes de enmalle y embarcaciones menores según lo registrado por la CAOI
alcanzan aproximadamente 60-80 000 t o 11 a 15 % del total de las capturas, aunque sólo sea una
estimación de la CAOI y puede que estas capturas sean subestimadas.
10. La flota de cerco que opera en el OIO cuenta 44 buques, 22 provenientes de la UE, cinco de Mayotte (que
se convertirán en buques de la UE el 1 de enero de 2014, cuando Mayotte venga a ser parte de la UE), y
otras flotas importantes de Seychelles e Irán. El número de buques ha disminuido, ya que eran 68 en
2005. Esta situación se debe en gran parte a la piratería en la región, aunque haya indicios que muestran
que un cierto número de buques podrían volver al OIO en los próximos años gracias a la mejora en la
situación de la piratería (sin embargo, un mayor número de buques podría a su vez regenerar las
actividades de piratería). El listado y el rabil son las dos principales especies de atún capturadas
(representan el 91 % del total de las capturas de cerco en 2011), el patudo constituye el resto de las
capturas (junto a muy pequeñas cantidades de atún blanco (menos de 0,5 %)). Los buques dependen en
gran medida del uso de dispositivos de concentración de peces (DCP), con alrededor del 80 % de las
capturas de los buques españoles y seychellenses en 2011 (184 320 t), y el 65 % de las capturas de los
buques franceses en 2011 (73 399 t) atrapadas alrededor de tales objetos flotantes. El aumento del uso de
DCP la evolución de su tecnología y la utilización de buques de suministro para ayudar en el despliegue
de los DCP y evaluar la cantidad de peces que se encuentran debajo de estos dispositivos, han servido
para aumentar la eficiencia de los esfuerzos de pesca por buque en los últimos años.
11.La flota palangrera que opera en el océano Índico en su conjunto está compuesta por 440 grandes buques
de ultra-congelación. Taiwán, Japón y China poseen el mayor número de buques. 76 buques
(principalmente de la UE, Tanzania y Sudáfrica) han sido identificados como buques cuyo objetivo de
pesca es el pez espada cuando mandaron su información al registro de buques activos de la CAOI, y es
probable que operen principalmente en el OIO. Otros grandes buques de ultra-congelación pueden operar
en el OIO y/o en el océano Índico oriental. Además, hay 1 653 de menor escala, buques de palangre de
atún fresco que operan en el océano Índico en su conjunto, sobre todo provenientes de Indonesia, Taiwán
y Sri Lanka. Sin embargo, el número de buques que faenan en el OIO y en el océano Índico oriental no se
puede definir con los datos disponibles. Un número de países costeros (por ejemplo, Mozambique,
Seychelles y Comoras) tiene planes para desarrollar sus flotas de palangre. Ha habido una disminución
del esfuerzo global desde el comienzo de la década de los 2000 que puede ser imputada a una
combinación de factores, entre ellos la disminución de las tasas de captura y la amenaza de piratería en
los últimos años. El esfuerzo de pesca se ha desplazado globalmente hacia el este (el esfuerzo de pesca
podría volver a desplazarse en el futuro si se mantienen las mejoras en la situación de la piratería). Las
diferentes flotas muestran marcadas diferencias en la composición de las capturas: las flotas de
Taiwán/China y Seychelles (estas últimas siendo explotadas por intereses taiwaneses) enfocan su pesca
al atún patudo; el objetivo de la flota japonesa y de Omán es el rabil; las flotas de España, Reino Unido y
Portugal tienen como meta capturar pez espada y tiburón; y la francesa/la Reunión se centra en el pez
espada y el atún.
12.La pesca de atuneros cañeros es la más tradicional de todas las pesquerías del OIO, sus orígenes se
encuentran en el siglo XII. El principal país de pesca es Maldivas, cuyos buques capturan atún listado
(83 % de las capturas, el resto siendo atún rabil), aunque también haya una flota de cañeros al oeste de la
India y una pesquería sudafricana que dirige sus esfuerzos a la captura de atún blanco (principalmente en
el Atlántico y, en menor medida, en el OIO). En todos estos casos, los buques desembarcan pescado
fresco. El esfuerzo en la flota de Maldivas ha disminuido drásticamente en los últimos años, donde muchos
cañeros se han pasado a la pesca de rabil con línea de mano, más rentable.
13.La pesca con redes de enmalle se concentra en el norte del mar Arábigo y en la región de Somalia, con
capturas predominantemente de atún rabil (65 % de las capturas, siendo el resto principalmente de atún
Page xviii
listado). Las condiciones ambientales del norte del mar Arábigo atraen a los grandes ejemplares de atún
rabil cerca de la superficie y los pescadores de la India, Omán, Pakistán y especialmente de Irán
(alrededor de 6 000 buques) explotan esta pesca estacional.
14.La pesca con línea de mano es esencialmente artesanal y no está bien documentada, pero Yemen,
Maldivas, India y Comoras contribuyen de forma importante a las capturas totales, el atún rabil y el listado
siendo la principal especie objetivo (80 % y 20 % de las capturas respectivamente).
15.Todas estas pesquerías/flotas atuneras tienen poco o ningún impacto en los hábitats sensibles de fondo
de mar ya que las capturas se realizan en la parte superior de la columna de agua pelágica. Los
principales incidentes en el ecosistema de las redes de cerco, palangre, redes de enmalle, de los cañeros
son (i) sus impactos sobre las especies no objetivo, (ii) la captura incidental de especies en peligro,
amenazadas, o protegidas (PAP) y (iii) su potencial para perturbar el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas
marinos, ya que eliminan a las especies de un alto nivel trófico. Los Estados miembros han tomado
acciones destinadas a la mitigación de estos impactos en el marco de la CAOI. Éstas constituyen una
serie de medidas de conservación y de gestión desarrolladas con el apoyo y en cooperación con otras
instituciones intergubernamentales e instituciones no gubernamentales tales como BirdLife Internacional,
el Acuerdo para la conservación de los albatros y petreles (ACAP), y el Memorando de entendimiento para
las tortugas marinas del océano Índico (IOSEA). Debido a su baja selectividad y a la posibilidad de
pérdidas de las redes, que resulta en « pesca fantasma », es posible que la pesca con redes de enmalle
sea la que tenga el mayor impacto en el ecosistema.
Exportación de productos pesqueros del océano Índico occidental
16. Dado el movimiento migratorio del atún en el OIO, el patrón de las capturas a lo largo del año y la posición
y tamaño de la ZEE de Seychelles, este país está bien situado para servir como principal núcleo regional
para la flota de cerco en el OIO. La gran mayoría de las capturas congeladas de los cerqueros en el OIO
(alrededor del 80 %) es o bien desembarcada para el procesamiento/conservería en Seychelles (en torno
al 30 % de los desembarques en Seychelles) o bien transbordada en Victoria para el procesamiento en
otra parte del OIO (en torno al 70 % de los desembarques en Seychelles), aunque en algunas épocas del
año los buques desembarquen productos directamente en las plantas de procesamiento en Mauricio,
Madagascar y Kenia para el enlatado o lomos. Las nuevas plantas de procesamiento de atún
ultracongelado, construidas en Mauricio y con una capacidad de unas 30 000 toneladas, intensificaran las
visitas de su nueva generación de cerqueros en Port Louis. Las características de estos navíos permiten el
almacenamiento a bordo del atún ultracongelado en seco a 40 °C, suministrado a las plantas de
procesamiento que exportan lomos, filetes y bloques saku (para sashimi congelado) a los mercados de
Asia y de Europea. Los altos niveles de procesamiento en la región de las capturas de los cerqueros y el
hecho de que más del 90 % de las capturas acaben en los mercados de la UE es una característica
notable de la pesquería de cerco.
17. Las flotas asiáticas de palangre dependen en gran medida del desembarque del producto en Port Louis,
Mauricio y se estima que el 50 % de las capturas de palangre en el OIO se transborda en Port Louis. Las
capturas asiáticas congeladas de rabil y de patudo están destinadas principalmente al mercado de sashimi
asiático. El atún blanco puede ser vendido a las fábricas de conservas o, en el caso de los buques de
temperaturas ultra bajas, también se vende a los mercados de sashimi en Asia. El tiburón y el pez espada
capturados por la flota asiática también son normalmente transbordados para su venta en Asia. Las flotas
palangreras españolas, británicas y portuguesas descargan sus capturas en Durban, Sudáfrica, aunque en
algunas épocas del año cuando los barcos están pescando en aguas más septentrionales las capturas
puedan ser desembarcadas en Diego Suárez, Madagascar o en Port Louis, Mauricio. Las aletas de tiburón
(que para los buques de la UE deben ser desembarcadas pegadas a los cuerpos antes de ser separadas
en el puerto) se negocian con Asia (ya sea directamente desde el puerto de desembarque o a través de
España). Los cuerpos de tiburones sin aletas son transbordados de vuelta a Europa y vendidos en los
países del sur de Europa, en Europa del Este y Rusia o en América del Sur a través de compradores
Page xix
brasileños. Los cuerpos de pez espada sin aletas son transbordados desde el OIO de regreso a Europa
para su posterior venta, sobre todo en España, Italia, Francia y Grecia.
18. Las capturas de los cañeros de Maldivas son consumidas en el país en fresco, o bien son congeladas y
exportadas a fábricas de conservas tailandesas, o enlatadas en las fábricas de conservas de Maldivas, o
transformadas en « pescado de Maldivas » (un producto hervido, ahumado y secado al sol) para el
consumo interno o la exportación (principalmente a Sri Lanka). Los volúmenes más pequeños de las
capturas sudafricanas de atún blanco son congelados para la exportación a fábricas de conservas,
principalmente en la UE.
19. Las capturas de atún con redes de enmalle en Omán, India, Yemen, Pakistán e Irán se desembarcan
principalmente en forma fresca/refrigerada. En Pakistán, India e Irán, la mayor parte del producto
desembarcado es destinado a las fábricas de conservas de atún en Irán, para su posterior venta en
Oriente Medio. En Pakistán, algunas cantidades se comercializan a nivel local en forma fresca/refrigerada
(mucha de la cual es consumida por la gran población de Bangladesh en Karachi), otras se procesan para
producir materia prima para las plantas coreanas de surimi, y el atún pequeño (como la bacoreta oriental y
la melva) se procesa para ser exportado salado/seco a Sri Lanka. En Irán, se supone que las capturas no
destinadas a las fábricas de conservas locales se consume localmente. Las capturas de la flota de redes
de enmalle de Yemen se destinan a las fábricas de conservas de Yemen o al consumo interno, parte del
producto siendo adquirido por las fábricas de conservas en Irán. En Omán, las capturas se procesan
localmente para conservas, que se venden en forma fresca o ahumada localmente en ventas ambulantes.
20. Las tres pesquerías artesanales con línea de mano importantes en el OIO - en Maldivas, Yemen y Omán -
están todas orientadas a la exportación, con un procesamiento local en lomos, principalmente a la UE y a
los mercados de Oriente Medio.
21. El total de las importaciones de atún de la UE provenientes de los países en el OIO fue de 135 714 t en
2012, algo más del 20 % de las importaciones totales de atún en la UE. Las importaciones de atún en
conserva del OIO representaron el 27 % de las importaciones totales de la UE de productos enlatados,
mientras que el OIO proporcionó el 18 % del total de los lomos de atún importados en la UE. Gran parte de
estas importaciones provienen de las capturas de atún efectuadas por los buques cerqueros de la UE
(172 824 t en 2011).
22. En el OIO se están negociando tres Acuerdos de Asociación Económica (AAE). Mientras el impulso hacia
una integración económica regional de los países africanos del OIO, del Caribe y del Pacífico (países
ACP) ha progresado a través de los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica interinos (AAEI), los AAE
regionales todavía siguen pendientes y las negociaciones de AAE globales con todos los países ACP del
OIO están todavía en curso. El 1 de octubre de 2014, los países ACP que no han ratificado los AAE
provisionales (o concluido AAE completos) con la UE serán excluidos del reglamento sobre el acceso al
mercado. Los países menos adelantados (PMA) podrían entonces utilizar el Acuerdo « Todo Salvo
Armas » (TSA) - que permite importar atún sin derechos de aduana, pero otros países más desarrollados
perderían su derecho de acceso al 0 %.
La flota atunera de la UE en el océano Índico occidental
23. La pesquería de cerco en el OIO está dominada por las actividades de la flota de la UE, que representan
el 66 % del total de las capturas de cerco, realizadas por 22 buques españoles y franceses. Mientras los
beneficios creados por la flota de palangre no están bien documentados, los beneficios económicos y
sociales generados únicamente por las actividades de la flota de cerco se estiman en 420+ puestos de
trabajo y 140 millones de EUR de valor añadido en la UE, y 4 000+ puestos de trabajo y 22 – 40
millones de EUR de valor añadido en el OIO. Las capturas en diferentes zonas pueden variar
significativamente de año en año para un mes específico dado los patrones de migración de atún, pero por
lo general cerca del 50 % del total de las capturas se realizan en zonas de alta mar y el 35 % en la ZEE de
Seychelles. El resto de zonas de pesca en la región del sur de Kenia representa en torno al 1-5 % de las
capturas totales. Por esta razón, una red de posibilidades de pesca que abra posibilidades de acceso a las
Page xx
zonas de pesca en todos los países/territorios es fundamental para la flota. El acceso a las ZEE de Kenia y
Tanzania se concierta a través de acuerdos privados anuales de acceso, lo cual crea una falta de
seguridad en el acceso. El resto de zonas de pesca son accesibles a través de AAP. Las disputas a
propósito de ciertas fronteras marítimas en el OIO plantean problemas para los buques. Mientras obtienen
autorizaciones para pescar en todas las zonas, la presencia de « zonas grises » implican que los buques
tienen que evitar este tipo de zonas, declarar las capturas a las administraciones de dos países o correr el
riesgo de ser acusados de pescar ilegalmente en un país u otro si no se declaran las capturas y la
entrada/salida a las dos administraciones. Todos los buques de la UE deben cumplir con la legislación de
la UE y con las medidas de gestión y conservación de la CAOI. Teniendo en cuenta la construcción en
curso de nuevos buques, el posible retorno de algunos buques de otros océanos al OIO con la mejora de
la situación de la piratería (si se mantiene), y el cambio de estado de los buques con pabellón de Mayotte,
que pasarán a ser buques de la UE a partir del 1 de enero de 2014, la flota de la UE podría aumentar de
cerca de 40 buques en los próximos años.
24. La contribución de la flota palangrera de la UE a las capturas palangreras totales en el OIO (alrededor del
10 % en 2007-2011), es muy inferior a la contribución de la flota de cerco de la UE a las capturas totales
de cerco en la región. La flota de la UE se puede dividir en dos flotas diferentes en función de su especie
objetivo: i) las flotas españolas, británicas y portuguesas (20, tres y tres buques respectivamente) se
centran en el pez espada y los tiburones, y ii) 28 buques franceses/la Reunión pescan atún y pez espada.
Las capturas por los buques españoles, británicos y portugueses se concentran sobre todo en las zonas
de alta mar (> 75 % del volumen total), aunque también se realizan capturas en Mozambique y
Madagascar. Los buques franceses/de la Reunión, más pequeños, tienden a pescar en la isla de la
Reunión o cerca de allí. No se realizan capturas en Kenia o Tanzania. No se espera que el número de
buques aumente en los próximos años. Puesto que el objetivo de capturas para los buques españoles,
británicos y portugueses es el pez espada y los tiburones que se encuentran en las zonas más al sur, un
desplazamiento hacia el norte de las actividades sería poco probable. Sin embargo, este movimiento hacia
el norte no se puede descartar, dadas las capturas históricas en las zonas más septentrionales y el
potencial de agotamiento local de las poblaciones de pez espada en las zonas de pesca actuales que
podrían causar que los buques cambien de terreno de pesca. No se considera probable que los buques de
la Reunión, dado su menor tamaño y los patrones de funcionamiento, estén interesados en la pesca en
lugares alejados de la isla de la Reunión.
25. Un AAP regional podría no ser práctico actualmente. Sin embargo, AAP/Protocolos individuales, podrían
utilizarse para presionar por una mayor coherencia regional en temas como la gestión de la pesca, la
ciencia y el cumplimiento de las reglas, a través del uso de textos legales coherentes y un apoyo sectorial
consistente que sería proporcionado por los distintos AAP/Protocolos.
Conclusiones
26. Las capacidades de gestión de la investigación y de la pesca en el OIO, junto con la acción a nivel
regional, proporcionan la base para la gestión sostenible de la pesca en la región, pero las mejoras en la
investigación, la gestión de la pesca, el seguimiento, control y vigilancia y el funcionamiento de las
instituciones regionales son necesarias. A pesar de las actuales limitaciones en dichas áreas, en general
el estatus de las principales poblaciones de atún capturadas se valora como bueno, con sólo el atún
blanco siendo sujeto a la sobrepesca. Sin embargo, el posible aumento del número de buques en los
próximos años debido al desarrollo de la flota de los Estado ribereños y al retorno de ciertos buques al
OIO podría poner en peligro el estado de las especies objetivo y no objetivo, a menos que se supervisen y
controlen cuidadosamente.
27. La flota de la UE seguirá representando una parte importante del esfuerzo total de pesca en el futuro,
sobre todo la flota de cerco, que constituye una parte significativa de las capturas totales. Las actividades
de los barcos de la UE generan importantes beneficios económicos y sociales en la UE y en la región,
gracias al desembarque y al procesamiento de las capturas. El impacto beneficioso de los fondos de
apoyo sectorial proporcionados por la UE como parte de los AAP/Protocolos en la región también
Page xxi
continuará siendo importante. Tanto para la flota de cerco como para los palangreros de la UE, la
capacidad de moverse ampliamente en todo el OIO siguiendo las pautas migratorias del atún, implica que
una red regional de posibilidades de pesca sea fundamental, aunque sea algo menos importante para los
buques palangreros, que dependen en mayor medida de la pesca en las zonas de alta mar. Como Kenia y
Tanzania son las dos únicas zonas de pesca en el sur del OIO que no tienen AAP/Protocolos con la UE y
que existen acuerdos de acceso privado en su lugar para los cerqueros, AAP/Protocolos entre la UE y
Kenia y Tanzania podrían potencialmente ser de interés para la Unión Europea. Esto queda sujeto a una
evaluación específica que se presenta en los dos informes de evaluación ex-ante de posibles
AAP/Protocolos entre la UE y Kenia y la UE y Tanzania.
Page xxii
Table of contents
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ iii

Résumé ............................................................................................................................................................ ix
Resumen .........................................................................................................................................................xvi
Table of contents .........................................................................................................................................xxiii
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 The western Indian Ocean – coastal and marine environment, aquatic ecosystems and
fisheries resources ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Coastal and marine environment ...................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 Main characteristics of the WIO waters ........................................................................................ 5
1.1.2 Marine and coastal environmental conditions in the WIO, and likely climatic changes – impacts
on the migration of tuna and tuna-like fisheries ......................................................................................... 7
1.2 Research into marine issues, tuna and related species, and tuna fisheries ...................................... 8
1.2.1 Research mechanisms and capacity ............................................................................................ 8
1.2.2 Overview of current and recent research in the region ................................................................. 8
2 Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western Indian Ocean .........12
2.1 Fisheries management organisations and related management measures .....................................12
2.1.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) .....................................................................................12
2.1.2 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC) ........................................................13
2.1.3 The South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) ..............................................................14
2.1.4 Southern African Development Community (SADC) ...................................................................14
2.1.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation (WIOTO) ...................................................................15
2.1.6 International Whaling Commission (IWC). ...................................................................................15
2.1.7 Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) .................................................................................................15
2.1.8 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) ..................................................................15
2.1.9 Other recent developments .........................................................................................................16
2.1.10 National tuna fisheries management frameworks ...................................................................16
2.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the western Indian Ocean ........................................17
2.2.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................17
2.2.2 Compliance with regional conservation and management measures ..........................................17
2.2.3 Inspection in port and Port State Measures .................................................................................17
2.2.4 Observer programmes.................................................................................................................18
2.2.5 National MCS capacities in the region .........................................................................................18
2.2.6 EU IUU Regulation ......................................................................................................................18
2.3 External support for improvements in management and conservation ............................................19
2.3.1 EU engagement in the region ......................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Other support ..............................................................................................................................21
3 Access to fishing zones in the region ..............................................................................................26
3.1 Types of access ...............................................................................................................................26
3.1.1 European Union FPAs. ................................................................................................................26
3.1.2 Private commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies, and governments in
the region .................................................................................................................................................27
3.1.3 Bilateral intergovernmental agreements ......................................................................................28
3.1.4 Reflagging, chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign
investors ...................................................................................................................................................28
Page xxiii
3.1.5 The specific case of Somalia .......................................................................................................29

3.1.6 The specific case of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) ....................................................29
3.2 Costs of access ...............................................................................................................................29
4 The tuna fishery in the western Indian Ocean .................................................................................33
4.1 WIO catches in the context of global tuna fisheries .........................................................................33
4.2 The purse seine fishery....................................................................................................................34
4.2.1 Evolution of the fleet ....................................................................................................................34
4.2.2 Evolution of effort ........................................................................................................................35
4.2.3 Purse seine catches by species ..................................................................................................37
4.2.4 FAD and free school set dependencies .......................................................................................37
4.3 The longline fishery ..........................................................................................................................38
4.3.3 Longline catches, by species .......................................................................................................42
4.4 The pole and line fishery ..................................................................................................................44
4.4.3 Pole-and-line catches, by species ...............................................................................................46
4.5 The gillnet fishery .............................................................................................................................47
4.5.2 Catches, by species ....................................................................................................................48
4.6 The handline fishery ........................................................................................................................49
4.6.2 Catches, by species ....................................................................................................................50
4.7 Status of target and bycatch fish stocks caught by tuna fisheries ....................................................51
4.7.1 Target species status ..................................................................................................................51
4.7.2 Skipjack tuna ...............................................................................................................................51
4.7.3 Yellowfin tuna ..............................................................................................................................52
4.7.4 Bigeye tuna .................................................................................................................................52
4.7.5 Albacore tuna ..............................................................................................................................52
4.7.6 Swordfish.....................................................................................................................................52
4.7.7 Status of bycatch species ............................................................................................................52
4.8 Ecosystem impacts of tuna fisheries ................................................................................................59
4.8.1 Purse seine fishery impacts .........................................................................................................59
4.8.2 Longline fishery impacts ..............................................................................................................59
4.8.3 Pole-and-line fishery impacts ......................................................................................................61
4.8.4 Gillnet fishery impacts .................................................................................................................61
4.9 Mitigation of the ecosystem impacts of fishing .................................................................................61
4.9.1 Sharks .........................................................................................................................................61
4.9.2 Marine turtles...............................................................................................................................62
4.9.3 Seabirds ......................................................................................................................................63
4.9.4 Mitigation of the effects of FADs ..................................................................................................63
4.10 The impacts of piracy in the WIO .....................................................................................................64
4.10.1 History and prevalence of pirate attacks .................................................................................64
4.10.2 Effects of piracy on fleets ........................................................................................................65
5 Trade in tuna products from the WIO ...............................................................................................69
5.1 Trade flows ......................................................................................................................................69
5.1.1 From the purse seine fleet ...........................................................................................................69
5.1.2 From the longline fleet .................................................................................................................70
Page xxiv
5.1.3 From the pole-and-line fleet .........................................................................................................71

5.1.4 From the gillnet fleet ....................................................................................................................71
5.1.5 From the handline fleet ................................................................................................................72
5.1.6 Summary of product flows from all fleets .....................................................................................73
5.1.7 Market prices ...............................................................................................................................76
5.2 Imports of tuna to the EU from the WIO ...........................................................................................79
5.3 EU and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the WIO ......................................................80
6 The EU tuna fleet in the western Indian Ocean ...............................................................................83
6.1 The EU fleet .....................................................................................................................................83
6.1.1 Purse seine vessels.....................................................................................................................83
6.1.2 Longline vessels ..........................................................................................................................87
6.1.3 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................89
6.2 Key findings from recent evaluations of FPAs/protocols in the WIO, recent events, and text in this
report, of potential relevance to FPAs with Kenya and Tanzania .............................................................90
6.3 A regional FPA?...............................................................................................................................92
7 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................93
7.1 Biological opportunities and constraints ...........................................................................................93
7.2 Technical opportunities and constraints ...........................................................................................93
7.3 Regulatory opportunities and constraints .........................................................................................93
7.4 Political and strategic opportunities and constraints ........................................................................95
7.5 Contractual opportunities and constraints ........................................................................................95
7.6 Economic opportunities and constraints ..........................................................................................95
8 References ..........................................................................................................................................97
ANNEXES
Annex A: Currency exchange rates used in this report ...................................................................................104
Annex B: List of acronyms/abbreviations ........................................................................................................105
Annex C: Consulted organisations ..................................................................................................................108
Annex D: Information on States and their Competent Authorities notified under Article 20(1) and (2) of the EU
IUU Regulation (as of 18 March 2013) ....................................................................................................111
Annex E: Overview of key tuna processing plants in the WIO region ..............................................................113
Annex F: Information on fisheries research institutions in the WIO .................................................................115
Annex G: IOTC Members, and species under the management mandate of the IOTC...................................116
Annex H: Projects in the WIO funded by the ACP FISH II Programme ...........................................................122
Annex I: Selected Articles from the Basic Regulation on the CFP. Council of the European Union. Brussels, 10
October 2013 ..........................................................................................................................................124
Annex J: Shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania ...............................................................................128
Annex K: Additional information on stock biology and status ..........................................................................130
Annex L: Additional information on the location of catches, by species and fleet type ....................................136
FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 0.1: geographical coverage of the IOTC ................................................................................................. 2
Figure 0.2: EEZs of selected countries in the WIO ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 1.1: phytoplankton concentration in two seasons: NE monsoon (left panel) and SW monsoon (right
panel) ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.2: primary production rates within EEZs in the WIO (in mgCm-2day-1) ................................................. 6
Figure 4.1: global tuna catches 2000-2011 (in millions of tonnes).....................................................................33
Page xxv
Figure 4.2: trends in effort (searching hours) for purse seine fleets in the WIO, 1980-2011 .............................36
Figure 4.3: fishing effort, in million of hooks, for selected longline fleets operating in the Indian Ocean ...........42
Figure 4.4: trends in the number of mechanised and non-mechanised pole-and-line vessels operating in the
Maldivian fishery .......................................................................................................................................45
Figure 4.5: trends in the effort of pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian and Indian fisheries ...........46
Figure 4.6: evolution of the gillnet fisheries of Iran and Pakistan, and the gillnet/longline fishery of Sri Lanka .48
Figure 4.7: trends in the catch, by species, caught by the Iranian fishery .........................................................49
Figure 4.8: distribution of breeding albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters in the Indian Ocean, and overlap with
IOTC longline fishing effort for all gear types and fleets (average annual number of hooks set per 5° grid
square from 2002 to 2005) ........................................................................................................................60
Figure 4.9: frequency of piracy-related events in the WIO, since 2009 .............................................................65
Figure 4.10: distribution of fishing effort (in days fishing for purse seine, and number of hooks for longline),
before and during the peak of piracy threats .............................................................................................67
Figure 4.11: number of hooks set (millions) from longline vessels by 5º square grid and main fleets, for the
years 2011 (left-hand plot) and 2012 (right-hand plot) ..............................................................................68
Figure 5.1: schematic of product flows from the purse seine and longline fleets operating in the WIO .............74
Figure 5.2: schematic of product flows from the gillnet and handline fleets operating in the WIO .....................75
Figure 5.3: purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif), 2008 to August 2013 (EUR/t) ..................................76
Figure 5.4: landed prices paid in the WIO for selected tuna products Sep 2012 to Oct 2013 (EUR/t)...............77
Figure 5.5: longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif), 2008 to May 2013 (EUR/t) ................................77
Figure 5.6: shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg) in Barcelona, origin (mostly Spain), 2006 to 201278
Figure 5.7: sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong, 2002 to 2011 ....................................................................79
Figure 8.1: average annual catches of yellowfin tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas..........................136
Figure 8.2: average annual catches of skipjack tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas...........................136
Figure 8.3: average annual catches of bigeye tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas .............................137
Figure 8.4: distribution of annual catches of albacore tuna for 2010, by 5º areas ...........................................137
Figure 8.5: distribution of annual catches of swordfish for 2009, by 5º areas ..................................................138
TABLES
Table 1.1: recent and current research in tuna fisheries and related marine ecosystems issues ......................11
Table 3.1: summary of active EU fishing agreements in WIO ...........................................................................26
Table 3.2: costs of active EU fishing agreements in WIO (EUR) .......................................................................30
Table 3.3: summary of fishing agreements in force in the Seychelles (non-EU) ...............................................30
Table 3.4: summary table of current costs of access charged by selected WIO countries (EUR/year) .............32
Table 4.1: tuna catches from the WIO (2005-2011) ..........................................................................................34
Table 4.2: tuna catches from the WIO (2011), by fleet segment and species, in tonnes ...................................34
Table 4.3: breakdown of the number of purse seine vessels fishing in the WIO, recent years and at 2000 and
2005 ..........................................................................................................................................................35
Table 4.4: purse seine catch (tonnes), by tropical tuna species, in WIO, 2011 .................................................37
Table 4.5: catch in tonnes by species and set type (average 2007-2011) for the three main purse seine fleets
in the WIO .................................................................................................................................................38
Table 4.6: breakdown of the number of large-scale, deep-freezing longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean,
recent years ..............................................................................................................................................40
Table 4.7: breakdown of the number of smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean,
recent years ..............................................................................................................................................41
Table 4.8: longline catches in 2011 in the WIO, in tonnes.................................................................................44
Table 4.9: pole-and-line catch of key species, by flag, in tonnes (2011) ...........................................................46
Table 4.10: gillnet catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011) ......................................................49
Table 4.11: handline catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011) .................................................50
Page xxvi
Table 4.12: summary table of catches, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and stock status for key target
species ......................................................................................................................................................51
Table 4.13: key bycatch fish species from the main WIO tuna and tuna-like fisheries ......................................53
Table 4.14: turtles in the Indian Ocean and their status ....................................................................................58
Table 5.1: EU imports of different tuna products, by region (t) ..........................................................................80
Table 5.2: status of EPAs in the WIO ................................................................................................................82
Table 6.1: estimated typical EU purse seine dependency on different fishing zones ........................................84
Table 6.2: summary of key economic and social benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO .......87
Page xxvii
Introduction
In recent years the European Union (EU) has signed a number of Fisheries Partnership Agreements
(FPAs4) and Protocols with ‘third countries’ in the western Indian Ocean (WIO), and the EU currently
has four Protocols in force in the WIO: with Comoros, Madagascar, Mozambique and Seychelles. The
Protocol to the FPA with Mauritius is expected to come into force in the coming months. The WIO FPAs
have multiple objectives, including supporting responsible fisheries, effective use of EU fleet capacity,
creation of employment and value-addition both in the EU and in third countries, provision of raw
material product to the EU processing industry, and contribution to EU market supplies. All the current
FPAs/Protocols are complementary and reinforce and strengthen the EU’s strategy to create a network
of tuna-fishing opportunities for EU fishing vessels in the WIO5. The WIO FPAs are focused on
promoting partnership arrangements, which secure access for EU vessels to highly migratory species
(in particular yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, albacore tuna and swordfish), while providing
financial contributions for access and support to fisheries sectoral policy.
According to Article 30(4) of the Financial Regulation, and Article 18 of its Rules of Application6,
European Commission Services have to undertake both ex ante and ex post evaluations for all
programmes and activities that entail significant spending. The Council of the EU Conclusions on the
External Dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) adopted on 19 March 20127 also request that
before a mandate is provided for a new Protocol to be negotiated, an ex post and ex ante evaluation be
undertaken by the European Commission where there is already an FPA/Protocol in place, and an ex
ante evaluation be completed where FPAs/Protocols are being considered where they have not
previously existed.
Following informal contact between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania8, which took place on the
fringes of the annual Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) meeting in May 2013, both Kenya and
Tanzania expressed interest in a possible FPA/Protocol with the EU. It is therefore necessary for ex
ante evaluations to be completed of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both countries to
provide the Council of the EU with the data and technical analyses of the situation to decide whether to
provide a mandate to the European Commission to negotiate FPAs/Protocols with one or both
countries on behalf of the EU.
The ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya, and Tanzania, are
presented separately and are not contained in this report. This report provides a regional analysis of the
situation and opportunities in WIO, and is intended to underpin and inform both ex ante evaluations.
Given that the possible FPAs/Protocols are being considered, and indeed the existing FPAs/Protocols
in the region, are for highly migratory species i.e. tuna and tuna-like species, both the ex ante
evaluations and this report only consider highly migratory species (although some brief comment is
provided in Annex J of this report on shrimp/prawn fisheries in both Kenya and Tanzania).
4 Note that the Text for a Basic Regulation on the common fisheries policy refers to Sustainable Fisheries Partnership
Agreements (SFPAs), implying that the term FPAs may be changed to SFPAs in the future. Throughout the report, the term
FPA is used both for past/existing FPAs, and for those that may be agreed in the future.
5 Note that as of 1 January 2014 Mayotte will become part of the EU and vessels flagged in Mayotte will therefore become
EU vessels.
6 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm#rf_modex (accessed 25 September 2013) The
new Financial Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 repealed Council
Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 1605/2002, and the new Rules of Application were adopted by the European Commission
on 29 October 2012.
7 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf (accessed 1 October 2013)
8 In this report ‘Tanzania’ refers to The United Republic of Tanzania, which is composed of mainland Tanzania (former
Tanganyika) and Tanzania Island (Zanzibar).
Page 1
For the purpose of this report, the WIO is defined as the WIO area of competence of the Indian Ocean
Tuna Commission (IOTC), as shown in Figure 0.1 below, i.e. 20º east to 80º east (and 77º east north of
the equator), and north of the Antarctic Convergence at 45º south.
Figure 0.1: geographical coverage of the IOTC

Source: IOTC website http://www.iotc.org/assets/iotc_area_l.gif (accessed 28 September 2013)
A more detailed map showing the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of selected countries in the region
with EEZs of importance to the EU fleet is provided below.
Page 2
Figure 0.2: EEZs of selected countries in the WIO

Source: Fish-i Africa project. Note: The boundaries marked are for illustrative purpose only and are approximate
The objectives of this report, reflected in its different sections, are to:
 Present information on the marine and oceanographic conditions in the WIO, and on the status
of fish stocks;
 Profile the management organisations in the region, and the related management measures in
place;
 Consider the different methods by which distant water fishing vessels obtain access to the
EEZs of countries in the region;
 Present information on the evolution of fleets and catches made by purse seine, longline and
pole and line vessels fishing in the region;
Page 3
 Profile product flows out of the region for catches made by different fleet types, and to consider
any fisheries imports to the EU from the region;
 Consider specifically the activities of the EU fleet operating in the WIO, and their interest in
having FPAs in the region; and
 Present some general conclusions regarding the problems/needs/threats common to the
fisheries of highly migratory species in the WIO, and which may have an impact on possible
FPAs/Protocols in the region.
This regional report was completed during the period September to December 2013, and was based on
a review of relevant literature (see references at the end of the main text of this report), existing
knowledge of the region, and relevant consultations in the WIO and in the EU with European
Commission services, the European External Action Service (EEAS), Member State administrations,
and the private sector.
Page 4
1 The western Indian Ocean – coastal and marine environment, aquatic

ecosystems and fisheries resources
1.1 Coastal and marine environment

1.1.1 Main characteristics of the WIO waters
The WIO is characterised by a seasonally reversing monsoon wind system that dominates the ocean
climate north of 25º South. During the boreal winter when the northeast monsoon is established, a
general westward flow close to the equator develops into an overall southward coastal current along
the east African coast. During the southwest monsoon, the general circulation in the Arabian Sea
reverses northward, with strong winds along the coast of Arabia towards the Indian sub-continent,
shifting towards the east and generating upwelling along the coastal areas and an energetic eddy field.
The most characteristic of these eddies is the Great Whirl, occurring off the east coast of Somalia, a
clockwise circulation pattern, appearing around May and extending until a month after the winds have
died, lasting on average 166 days per year with strong surface currents (up to 2.5 t/sec)9. A second,
smaller eddy, known as the Socotra eddy, often accompanies the Great Whirl. These meso-scale
processes bring increased nutrient supply to the upper layer during the monsoon seasons, contributing
to the growth of phytoplankton blooms twice a year10. The upwelling associated with these processes
creates an area of intense biological productivity from the coast of Somalia to the Gulf of Oman; this
feature is continuous with an offshore region. In the northern Arabian Sea, north of 15º north, the high
biological productivity results in a depleted oxygen content at a relative shallow depth, a limiting factor
in the distribution of some species.
Another characteristic of the WIO is a relatively shallow thermocline, usually at 50-100 metres (m),
which compares with the eastern Indian Ocean (EIO) where the thermocline is more than 100 m in the
area from Sumatra to Sri Lanka11.
Episodes of anomalous oceanographic and atmospheric conditions affect the WIO at irregular intervals.
There are effects related with El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in the Pacific, although the
timing, intensity and modality of the Indian Ocean ENSO are not necessarily synchronised with the
ENSO events in the Pacific Ocean. The Indian Ocean dipole is an atmospheric anomaly that could be
associated with the ENSO, and which is characterised by warmer than usual surface waters, a deeper
thermocline and a reduced primary productivity in the WIO, a pattern that is reversed in the EIO12. The
three most important dipole events in recent times took place in 1998, 2003 and 2006-7, with more
pronounced effects when they coincide with an ENSO event.
Another atmospheric event that has been documented is moving sea-surface temperature anomalies,
known as Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), promoting strong air-ocean interactions in a zone known as
the Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge (SCTR). The SCTR is characterised by high surface
temperature and a shallow thermocline, and anomalies such as the MJO have been reported as having
a strong influence on the distribution of the fisheries.
9 Beal and Donohue, 2013.

10 Resplandy et al., 2011.
11 Longhurst, 1998.
12 Marsac, 2008.
Page 5
Figure 1.1: phytoplankton concentration in two seasons: NE monsoon (left panel) and SW
monsoon (right panel)
Source: NASA SeaWiFS Ocean Colour Project13
Primary production rates in the region vary considerably, with a general pattern of rates increasing as
you move from the south of the WIO to the north, as shown in Figure 1.2 below.
Figure 1.2: primary production rates within EEZs in the WIO (in mgCm-2day-1)
Source: Sea Around Us Project, 2013
13 http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS (accessed 16 November 2013)
Page 6
1.1.2 Marine and coastal environmental conditions in the WIO, and likely climatic changes – impacts
on the migration of tuna and tuna-like fisheries
The oceanographic conditions described above provide the basic habitat for the large stocks of tuna
that occur throughout the WIO.
As expected, catches are generally associated with areas of good productivity and the fish aggregating
device (FAD) fishery off the Somali area is closely related to the presence of the strong gyre in the
southwest monsoon14. The shallow thermocline of the WIO favours the concentration of fish in a habitat
within the reach of the purse seine fleet. By contrast, there is very little or any purse seine effort in the
EIO, given that the thermocline is, normally, much deeper and the tuna tend to be distributed lower
down in the water column.
The low oxygen levels at intermediate depths north of 15º north means that the northern Arabian Sea is
virtually devoid of bigeye tuna and that large yellowfin tuna are available at shallower depths than in the
south.
The distribution of sea surface temperature also seems to have an effect on the extent of the spawning
of yellowfin tuna, which tend to reproduce actively in waters above 25º C, and possibly of other species
as well.
The potential impact of climate change on marine and coastal environmental conditions, and in turn on
fish stocks, is not well enough understood to make firm estimates of future changes and timeframes in
the WIO resulting from climate change. However, ecosystem productivity is likely to be reduced in most
tropical and subtropical oceans such as the WIO due to sea temperature rises. Sea temperatures and
salinity changes will both have an impact on ocean circulation and coastal upwelling; uptake of
atmospheric CO2 by the oceans will decrease surface seawater pH, thereby changing the depth below
which calcium carbonate dissolves (affecting reef formation); and there could be significant changes in
one- to two-year duration events and variability operating at decadal and longer timescales. All of the
above potential changes could affect the timing and success of physiological, spawning and recruitment
processes, primary and secondary production and fish distributions15.
However, some research indicates that recent increases in temperature might have affected the high-
pressure systems, normally created in the WIO through a process known as Walker circulation, bringing
more frequent and severe change in rainfall. Such atmospheric changes would create conditions similar
to El Niño or the Indian Ocean dipole16.
These atmospheric anomalies can disrupt the normal sequence of the monsoon season, creating
warmer than usual conditions in the WIO, together with reduced productivity and a deeper thermocline.
During the strong ENSO-Indian Ocean dipole event of 1998, the purse seine fleet shifted its focus to
the EIO in response to changes in the distribution of fish and reduced productivity in the WIO, or in the
ability of the gear to catch the fish as a consequence of a deeper than usual thermocline.
Environmental conditions are likely to be behind the major increase in the catches of yellowfin tuna
experienced during 2003-2006, possibly through a combination of good recruitments, perhaps driven by
the warmer conditions in 1998-1999, or simply because of higher aggregations of the fish due to
environmental conditions, or a combination of both effects. In 2004, a large bloom of macrozooplankton
was recorded in most of the WIO, supporting the hypothesis that favourable forage conditions affected
14 Marsac, 2008.
15 Macfadyen and Allison, 2009.
16 Schewe and Leverman, 2012.
Page 7
the concentration of fish, and possibly, their growth. Fonteneau et al. (2006) have also documented
exceptional catches in 2005 associated with a large chlorophyll concentration close to a thermal front.
1.2 Research into marine issues, tuna and related species, and tuna fisheries
1.2.1 Research mechanisms and capacity
Research on the species caught by tuna fisheries and their ecosystems is primarily the responsibility of
the national scientists working in the IOTC countries. The results of the stock status analyses or new
research conducted by national scientists are reviewed at IOTC scientific Working Parties, mainly to
provide guidance to the Scientific Committee in the formulation of management advice to the
Commission. The Working Parties are open to interested and technically competent participants and
their reports are directed to the Scientific Committee.
The general terms of reference for these Working Parties are:
 Review new information on the biology and stock structure of species of the relevant species,
their fisheries and environmental data;
 Coordinate and promote collaborative research on the species and their fisheries;
 Develop and identify models and procedures for the species stock assessments;
 Conduct stock assessments for each species or stock;
 Provide technical advice on management options, the implications of management measures
and other issues; and
 Identify research priorities, and specify data and information requirements that are necessary
for the Working Party to meet its responsibilities.
There are four species Working Parties (Tropical Tunas, Billfish, Neritic Tunas and Temperate Tunas),
and others for Ecosystem and Bycatch, Data Collection and Statistics, and Methods.
The main national research institutions in the IOTC countries in the WIO are listed in Annex F.
In addition to research in the IOTC forum, the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association
(WIOMSA) is a regional advisory, non-governmental organisation, registered in Zanzibar. It is
committed to promoting the development of marine sciences throughout the WIO region, and has 10
Member States17. WIOMSA recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) making it responsible for providing research, technical, managerial
and advisory support to UNEP as requested.
1.2.2 Overview of current and recent research in the region
1.2.2.1 Tuna fisheries
The institutions associated with IOTC are the main regional providers of scientific research. The IOTC
covers a number of work areas specifically on tuna, such as:
1) Biological parameters for stock assessment, including research on stock structure;
2) Development of indicators of stock status;
3) Analysis of catch-and-effort data for developing indices of abundance, including fleet dynamics;
4) Use of stock assessment models to determine stock status; and
17 Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Comoros, Madagascar, Seychelles, Mauritius and Réunion
(France).
Page 8
5) Management strategy evaluations in order to develop harvest control rules and reference
points.
The seven-year Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme (IOTTP) was supervised in its entirety by the
IOTC from 2002 to 2009 and was comprised of an EU-funded large-scale project implemented by the
Commission de l’Océan Indien / Indian Ocean Commission (COI/IOC), the Regional Tuna Tagging
Project (RTTP-IO) and a series of small-scale project in Maldives, India, Mayotte, Indonesia funded by
the EU, the Government of Japan and the People’s Republic of China. The ultimate goal of the
programme was to improve the ability of the IOTC Member States to manage the tuna fisheries in the
Indian Ocean through a better knowledge of the status and population dynamics of the main stocks. As
part of the different activities of the IOTTP, more than 200 000 tuna were tagged and released, of which
84 % were released during the RTTP-IO. The results provided new insights on the biology, the
population dynamics and status of the main tuna species. For example, tagging data provided new
estimates of the growth of the three tropical tuna species. They have provided insights into their spatial
dynamics, including examples of large-scale movements, from fish tagged in Tanzania waters and
subsequently recovered in the Arabian Sea, Indonesia and the South Atlantic.
1.2.2.2 Ecosystems-related research
The institutions associated with IOTC are engaged in a number of ecosystems-related research areas
in support of tuna fisheries management, such as work on:
1) Oceanographic conditions and climate change indicators; and
2) Other technical work related to ecosystem considerations, such as ecosystem risk
assessments for non-target species, the technical merits of mitigation measures and estimation
of bycatch rates.
The Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme (ASCLME), the South
West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) and the Western Indian Ocean Land Based
Impacts on the Marine Environment (WIO-LaB) Project
These three projects were part of a multi-project United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) /
UNEP / World Bank / Global Environment Facility (GEF) programme, supporting management
improvements for the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems. The projects worked with
Comoros, France (outermost regions), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South
Africa and Tanzania. The intended relationship between the projects was for all three projects to work
towards a harmonised transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and strategic action plan (SAP), with
an expected outcome being national commitments to address key transboundary fisheries
management issues, and establishing monitoring and evaluation indicators (process, stress reduction
and environmental status indicators) to monitor long-term ecosystem health.
The WIO-LaB project was implemented by UNEP and competed in 2010, and was focused on land-
based pollution.
The objectives of the ASCLME Project (which ended 2013) were:
 To gather new and important information about ocean currents and how they interact with and
influence the climate, biodiversity and economies of the western Indian Ocean region;
 To document the environmental threats faced by the countries of the region in a TDA;
 To develop an SAP that sets out a strategy for the countries to collectively deal with
transboundary threats; and
 To strengthen scientific and management expertise, with a view to introducing an ecosystem
approach to managing the living marine resources of the western Indian Ocean region.
Page 9
The SWIOFP, completed in March 2013, had the overall objective of promoting ‘the environmentally
sustainable use of fish resources through adoption by countries riparian to the Southwest Indian Ocean
of a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)-based approach to fisheries management in the Agulhas and
Somali LMEs that recognises the importance of preserving biodiversity.’ This was to be achieved
through identification and study of offshore non-tuna species and their exploitation within the southwest
Indian Ocean, development of institutional and human capacity for both fisheries science and
management, development of fisheries management plans at both national and, where appropriate,
regional levels, and mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries management, policy and legislation. While
the focus of the project was not on tuna, it did complete some work on large pelagic highly migratory
species.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) implements the EAF-Nansen Project18, in collaboration
with the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), which in addition to promoting the
implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF), has produced research and resource
prospection through the activities of the R/V Fritjord Nansen, a research vessel that also contributes to
capacity building of scientists from the region. Notionally, the project started in December 2006, but
substantively from early 2008, and has a five-year time frame. The project is executed by FAO in close
collaboration with the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) of Bergen, Norway and is funded by Norad.
The objectives of the project are to provide the fisheries research institutions and management
administrations in the participating countries with additional knowledge on their ecosystems for their
use in planning and monitoring, and to further the acceptance and application of the key principles of
the EAF.
The French Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) contributes with research programmes
on oceanography, routinely reporting on the trends in climatological oceanographic conditions to the
relevant IOTC Working Parties, and ecosystem modelling including tuna species.
The Réunion delegation of the Institut Français de Recherche por l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER)
implements the project IOSSS-ESPADON, designed to study the genetic structure of the swordfish
resource at the level of the Indian Ocean, improve knowledge of the biology of the species and improve
understanding of the connections of swordfish across the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
1.2.2.3 Climate change
While research on climate change, including global forecasts about the evolution of various
environmental characteristics receives a lot of attention (see section 1.1.2 above, for a discussion of
possible trends in the WIO), there are few studies in the Indian Ocean concerning the consequences of
these changes on the tuna fisheries.
A few exceptions are the modelling of responses of the distribution of skipjack tuna to the changing
conditions of environment, including prey distributions19. Such a modelling programme could be used
for predicting some of the effects of changes in the environment. Other work has looked directly at the
possible economic consequences of a displacement of the fleet in response to change in environmental
conditions similar to those during ENSO events20. If conditions caused by climate change are similar to
those experienced during ENSO events, a large displacement of the tuna fleet is expected towards the
EIO, which would seriously affect the competitiveness of Seychelles as the regional tuna hub.
18 ‘Strengthening the Knowledge Base for and Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Marine Fisheries in Developing
Countries’, http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/topic/18001/en (accessed 16 November 2013).
19 Dueri et al., 2012.
20 Guillotreau et al., 2012.
Page 10
Summary
The research presented above is summarised in the table below.
Table 1.1: recent and current research in tuna fisheries and related marine ecosystems issues
Status and
Title Scope / main area of research Researcher
timing
IOTC working parties Tropical Tunas, Billfish, Neritic Tunas and IOTC and Ongoing
Temperate Tunas), and others for national
Ecosystem and Bycatch, Data Collection scientists
and Statistics, and Methods
Indian Ocean Tuna Exploitation rate / population size, biology, IOTC/EU Completed 2009
Tagging Programme and spatial movements of main tuna consultants
(IOTTP) species
Western Indian Ocean Land-based pollution of marine UNEP Completed 2010
Land Based Impacts on ecosystems
the Marine Environment
(WIO-LaB) Project
South West Indian Ocean Main scope of research on offshore shared Government Completed
Fisheries Project non-tuna fisheries (demersal, shrimp, and research March 2013
(SWIOFP) small pelagic), but engaged with larger institutes and
pelagic species research and with ETP fisheries
species and ecosystems departments in
nine countries in
the southwest
Indian Ocean
(SWIO)
The Agulhas and Somali Marine ecosystems and small-scale UNDP Completed 2013
Current Large Marine fisheries
Ecosystems Programme
(ASCLME),
Initiative to support the implementation of Executed by 2006 – ongoing
the ecosystem approach in the FAO with the
management of marine fisheries. The aim Institute of
EAF-Nansen Project is to promote sustainable utilisation of Marine
(GCP/INT/003/NOR)21 marine living resources and improved Research (IMR)
protection of the marine environment of Bergen,
Norway, funded
by Norad
IRD Oceanography in the Indian Ocean, Francis Marsac, Ongoing
ecosystem modelling Olivier Maury
IFREMER (Réunion) Genetic analysis for stock determination Jerome Bourjea Ongoing
Source: consultants’ compilation
21 http://www.eaf-nansen.org/nansen/en
Page 11
2 Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western

Indian Ocean
The extent of the migrations of tuna and tuna-like species, and the fact that they are caught both in the
EEZs of coastal States and in the high seas, dictate that management and conservation actions have to
be taken at regional level, involving both coastal States and distant fishing water nations (DWFNs). In
this context, ‘regional’ should be understood as encompassing an area large enough for the actions to
be effective, as they need to cover the whole range of the distributions of the species involved.
Regionalism provides opportunities for harmonised responses to common or shared problems,
exchange of information and experience, and efficiencies of scale. This is particularly the case with
regard to the region’s oceanic fisheries, which traverse the boundaries of all WIO countries.
The text below outlines the principal organisations in the region with an involvement with fisheries
management.
2.1 Fisheries management organisations and related management measures

2.1.1 Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
The IOTC is the intergovernmental regional fishery management organisation, established under the
framework of the FAO, mandated to manage tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean and
adjacent seas. The IOTC Agreement came into force on 27 March 1996, and its Secretariat, based in
Seychelles, became operational in January 1998. In spite of formally being an FAO body, IOTC enjoys
full functional and budgetary autonomy from FAO.
The objective of the Commission is to ensure, through appropriate management, the conservation and
optimum utilisation of stocks covered by this Agreement and encouraging sustainable development of
fisheries based on such stocks. The management mandate for the IOTC includes 16 species (listed in
Annex G), although conservation measures have also been taken to protect other species caught in
association with IOTC species in the ecosystem.
The IOTC provides a formalised framework and legal basis for regional management of tuna stocks in
the Indian Ocean. And indeed, the IOTC can be considered by far the most important regional fisheries
management organisation with respect to highly migratory species in the WIO.
The use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) has been mandatory since July 2007 for vessels of 15 m
overall length and above, although coverage is still low in the small-scale fisheries in the region. There
is no centralised VMS or protocols for exchange of information under the IOTC framework although
such arrangements exist, in principle, for WIO coastal States under the IOC’s Regional Plan for
Fisheries Surveillance.
Port State controls were first established in 2003, to be followed by the adoption in 2010 of a Port State
Measures resolution virtually identical to the still-not-in-force FAO Port State Measures Agreement. No
inspection-at-sea provisions have been adopted for the high seas, although there has been an
extension of the mandate of the observers under the transshipment monitoring programme that allows
them to conduct a limited inspection on the fishing vessels, allowing them to report a number of Illegal,
unregulated or unreported (IUU) infractions to the Compliance Committee.
A trade documentation scheme for catches of frozen bigeye tuna was adopted in 2001, but several
attempts to replace it with a catch documentation scheme (similar to the one adopted under the EU IUU
Regulation) have not yet received support from countries concerned about the cost of implementation.
Measures on the data to be submitted on catches and fishing activities were first adopted in 1998, and
continue to be updated periodically. A Regional Observer Scheme was adopted in 2010, which requires
Page 12
a minimum coverage of 5 % in national observer schemes for large-scale vessels and similar coverage
of port sampling for small-scale and artisanal fisheries. As implementation depends on separate
programmes being implemented at national level, there has been an unequal level of implementation
between the different flag States depending on their resources. Also, some flag States have argued
that the piracy threat and the need to have armed personnel on board mean that there was no room for
scientific observers.
A recent important step has been the adoption of the precautionary approach, indicative interim
reference points and establishing a process to define harvest control rules and refine those reference
points, following analyses by the Scientific Committee.
In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on actions related to the application of the
ecosystem approach, such as protection of marine turtles, mitigation of incidental mortality of seabirds,
protection of some shark species (thresher, oceanic whitetip, whale sharks) and protection of
cetaceans. However, in addition to the lack of data on by-catch, the difficulty of monitoring of
compliance with these actions and the fact that some members consider that IOTC does not have a
mandate over these species, have probably reduced the effectiveness of these actions.
Additional information on the IOTC is provided in Annex G. The annex describes how the organisation
works in terms of proposals being tabled by Members and then adopted, the species under its
mandate, its members, and the resolutions and recommendations that have been adopted.
2.1.2 Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC)
The SWIOFC is an advisory body, established under the FAO framework in 2004. It has the following
goals:
 To contribute to improved governance through institutional arrangements that encourage
cooperation amongst members;
 To help fishery managers in the development and implementation of fishery management
systems that take due account of environmental, social and economic concerns;
 To keep under review the state of the fishery resources in the area and the industries based on
them;
 To promote, encourage and coordinate research related to the living marine resources in the
area and draw up programmes required for this purpose, and to organise such research as
may be necessary;
 To promote the collection, exchange, dissemination and analysis or study of statistical,
biological, environmental and socio-economic data and other marine fishery information;
 To provide a sound scientific basis to assist Members in taking fisheries management
decisions;
 To provide advice on management measures to Member governments and competent fisheries
organisations;
 To provide advice and promote cooperation on monitoring, control and surveillance, including
joint activities, especially regarding issues of a regional or sub-regional nature;
 To encourage, recommend and coordinate training in the areas of interest of the Commission;
and
 To promote and encourage the utilisation of the most appropriate fishing craft, gear, fishing
techniques and post-harvesting technologies.
The current membership includes Comoros, France (on behalf of its overseas territories), Kenya,
Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, United Republic of
Tanzania and Yemen.
Page 13
The area of jurisdiction is limited to the EEZs of the countries involved, but in practice, this does not
constrain SWIOFC effectiveness, as currently it does not have a management mandate. Its current
structure includes a Scientific Committee that has the task of reviewing the status of the domestic
stocks in the EEZs of the Member States.
In February 2013 at a meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, SWIOFC members agreed to engage in a
process to convert SWIOFC into a management body, still under FAO, but able to make management
decisions that are binding on its members. However, to date, SWIOFC has not determined which
stocks should be considered as shared between two or more of its members. As part of this evolution,
SWIOFC is considering having an independent Secretariat based in Maputo, Mozambique. Currently,
the FAO Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa in Zimbabwe provides the Secretariat.
In 2012, SWIOFC agreed to establish a Working Party on Collaboration and Cooperation in Tuna
Matters, with the support of WWF, with the main purpose of establishing a common vision and strategy
concerning IOTC management actions, most notably, on the issue of future allocation of fishing
opportunities. The first meeting took place in 2013, with a common position agreed amongst almost all
SWIOFC Members, with only France dissenting. The work plan of the Working Party for 2013 includes
further consultation on IOTC matters and work towards common conditions to incorporate into access
agreements. The second meeting took place in October 2013 in Mozambique.
2.1.3 The South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)
The SIOFA is an Agreement adopted at a Conference of Plenipotentiaries for the Adoption of the
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, held on 7 July 2006 at the Headquarters of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in Rome, Italy. The Agreement entered into force on 21
June 2012, and the first meeting of the Parties took place in October 2013. The Contracting Parties are
Australia, Cook Islands, European Union, Mauritius and Seychelles.
The SIOFA is a regional fishery ‘arrangement’, as referred to in several provisions of the 1995 United
Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. It has neither a seat nor a permanent secretariat.
The main organ of the SIOFA is the Meeting of the Parties. The Agreement foresees that the Meeting
of the Parties shall take place at least once a year and, to the extent practicable, back-to-back with
meetings of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission. The contracting parties may also hold
extraordinary meetings when deemed necessary. In addition to the Meeting of the Parties, the
Agreement has contemplated two subsidiaries:
 A permanent Scientific Committee, which shall meet at least once a year, and preferably prior
to the Meeting of the Parties;
 A Compliance Committee, which shall meet in conjunction with the Meeting of the Parties and
shall report, advise and make recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties.
2.1.4 Southern African Development Community (SADC)

SADC is an intergovernmental organisation established in 1992 that comprises 15 countries of
southern Africa, including Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania
from the Indian Ocean. SADC has taken decisions in the context of marine fisheries, including adopting
a binding Fisheries Protocol, in which they agreed to harmonise their domestic legislation with particular
reference to fisheries and the management shared resources, and to take adequate measure to
optimise fisheries law-enforcement resources. The protocol has no implementing mechanism attached
to it, and while some improvements in legislation and MCS have been achieved through donor-funded
and national initiatives, domestic legislation is however still far from harmonised across the SADC
region, and as discussed elsewhere in this report fisheries law-enforcement still requires considerable
strengthening.
Page 14
Under SADC there has been a plan to establish a Regional Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)
Fisheries Coordination Centre in Maputo, Mozambique, although funding difficulties have delayed the
completion of this project.
2.1.5 Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation (WIOTO)
WIOTO was established by the Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation Convention, which entered
into force in December 1992. It is an advisory body for coastal states with a stake in fisheries for tuna
and tuna-like species. The main objectives are ‘(a) harmonization of policies with respect to fisheries;
(b) relations with distant water fishing nations; (c) fisheries surveillance and enforcement; (d) fisheries
development; and (e) access to exclusive economic zones of members’.
The membership is open to the funding States (Comoros, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives,
Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Tanzania). Any independent coastal State bordering
the western Indian Ocean whose territory is situated principally in the western Indian Ocean region may
also be admitted by unanimous approval of the parties to the Convention. The present members of
WIOTO are Seychelles, Mauritius, Comoros and India.
Following the first meeting of the Parties in 1994, WIOTO, which was expected to fulfil a role akin to
that of the FFA in the Pacific Ocean, has conducted no further activities to date.
2.1.6 International Whaling Commission (IWC).
The IWC is a management body whose membership extends to countries all over the world. It is
concerned with the conservation and management of whale stocks, and many countries in the WIO are
members, although it has little relevance to the activities of tuna vessels in the WIO22.
2.1.7 Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)
The Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) is an intergovernmental organisation that was created in 1982 at
Port-Louis, Mauritius and institutionalised in 1984 by the Victoria Agreement in Seychelles. IOC is
comprised of five countries in the Indian Ocean: Comoros, Réunion, Madagascar, Mauritius and
Seychelles. IOC’s principal mission is to strengthen the ties of friendship between the countries and be
a platform of solidarity for the entire population of the Indian Ocean region. IOC’s mission also includes
development, through projects related to sustainability for the region, aimed at protecting the region,
improving living conditions of the populations and preserving the natural resources that the countries
depend on. IOC is the only organisation in the region that is composed exclusively of islands; it aims to
defend the islands’ mutual interests at a regional and international level, whilst promoting solidarity and
sustainable development.
Its activities are organised around six areas of intervention, two of which i) Fishing, Agriculture and
Energy, and ii) Environment and Natural Resources, are of relevance for support to fisheries
management and ecosystem preservation.
The IOC has engaged in numerous projects related to fisheries, primarily with EU funding. These
projects include the Regional Tuna Tagging Programme (2002-2009, supervised by the IOTC and
described in section 1.2), the regional SmartFish project (ongoing), and the intergovernmental Regional
Plan for Fisheries Surveillance (2007-2014).
2.1.8 New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
NEPAD has been building capacity within fisheries for some years to support the implementation of the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The main fisheries component
22 http://www.fao.org/fishery/rfb/iwc/en#Org-OrgsInvolved
Page 15
under NEPAD Agency is the Partnership for African Fisheries (PAF) with working groups within
governance, trade, aquaculture and Stop Illegal Fishing (SIF). PAF was a key player in the Conference
of African Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA 1) in 2010, and is now planning the CAMFA
II in cooperation with NEPAD and the African Union (AU). NEPAD is the implementing agency of the
AU and has a large political and professional network in relation to fisheries. NEPAD also works with
the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and can consequently facilitate cooperation between
them. NEPAD mainly works with higher-level pan-African policy and governance issues. SmartFish has
opportunities to co-operate with SIF in relation to case studies on MCS, as these would be valuable to
share best practice and to develop a coherent voice in relation to capacity needs in MCS.
2.1.9 Other recent developments
IOTC coastal States, including those outside the WIO region, continue to meet to develop their
common views of the actions under IOTC. A major catalyst for these efforts was the start, in 2011, of
the work of IOTC Members towards developing criteria for quota allocation or adopting alternative
management actions. Prior to the first meeting of the Technical Committee on Allocation Criteria in
2011, Sri Lanka, under the umbrella of Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Commission (IOMAC), led an effort
to position coastal States as a group of 17 ‘like-minded’ States that shared the same views on the
question of quota allocation and alternative management approaches to be considered.
WWF also has facilitated, through its Tanzania-based Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (CEANI),
actions and discussions on the characteristics of FPAs, and on creating conditions for certification of
fishery products, but also to discuss common IOTC positions, respectively. Prior to the last two IOTC
Sessions (Australia, 2012 and Mauritius, 2013), there were two-day meetings, sponsored and facilitated
by Australia, in which the member countries discussed the technical issues concerning proposals for
conservation and management measures, with a view to developing a common position.
Maldives called for a tuna management workshop for Indian Ocean coastal States, which took place in
Male, Maldives in June 2013, and was attended by officials from 17 countries. The workshop reviewed
the progress of the IOTC process, especially following the allocation discussions, and was aimed at
further building capacity on management and science issues related to tuna fisheries. There was an
agreement that a body such as the Fisheries Forum Agency in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean
could help States with limited capacity and financial resources to better address fishery management
issues. There was also agreement to hold two meetings in 2014 before and after the Annual Session of
IOTC to develop possible common positions.
Finally, it is noted that as of 1 January 2014, Mayotte will formally become part of the EU, as an
outermost region of France. This has implications for management of fisheries resources in the waters
around Mayotte, in particular the need to establish an agreement between Seychelles and the EU to
allow Seychelles-registered vessels to fish in the waters of Mayotte. Such an agreement will be
separate to the existing Seychelles/EU FPA, as there is no financial implication for the EU budget, and
the agreement would involve fishing authorisation revenues being paid to the Mayotte administration by
Seychelles-flagged vessels, and no sectoral support (as is the case for FPAs).
2.1.10 National tuna fisheries management frameworks
It is the responsibility of IOTC Members to ensure that action is taken under their national legislation to
implement conservation and management measures, which become binding on them. It has not been
possible within the scope of this project to review national legislation, conservation and management
measures.
Page 16
2.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the western Indian Ocean
2.2.1 Overview
Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) offers a series of tools that allow States to establish a
mechanism to verify the compliance with i) the conservation and management measures adopted at the
regional level (i.e. IOTC Resolutions), ii) any additional measures that could be adopted in domestic
legislation, and iii) the conditions associated with access agreements with third parties23. The MCS of
domestic legislation and access agreement conditions are noted as important, but given the scope of
this report, the text below primarily considers compliance with regional conservation and management
measures, although some brief information on national MCS capacities is provided in section 2.2.5.
2.2.2 Compliance with regional conservation and management measures
There are few regional binding actions to manage tuna fisheries adopted outside the IOTC-agreed
measures. One possible exception is the agreement amongst IOC countries to ban transshipment at
sea within its EEZs to all vessels, but there are no records of specific mechanisms of compliance of the
measure. Therefore, the text below focuses on the compliance situation within the IOTC.
In the IOTC, the monitoring of compliance is the responsibility of the IOTC Compliance Committee,
whose mandate and process were reinforced in 2010. Following this reform, the situation of each
individual country is reviewed on the basis of country reports prepared by the Secretariat, listing the
level of compliance of each Member according to the information supplied. At the end of each Session,
the main outstanding issues for each country are noted, and the countries are invited to report, before
the following session, on the specific actions that were taken to address these deficiencies.
While several States in the region have limited capacity to conduct effective surveillance over such a
large area, Madagascar has an operational Centre for surveillance ensuring patrols at sea with 3 patrol
vessels and 2 involved in high seas patrols which play a key role in the regional surveillance.
Furthermore, Mozambique has recently placed an order for two more patrol vessels (together with
additional fishing vessels). The ability to maintain patrol vessels in good operating conditions is often a
concern, and regional patrolling might prove to be a better way of pooling resources (see next section).
2.2.3 Inspection in port and Port State Measures
The IOTC has adopted two Resolutions that regulate port inspection, and that are currently in force.
They are almost identical to the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures, which although adopted has
yet to enter into force.
The bulk of the unloading of catches in the WIO takes place in just a few ports of the region, and this
has helped in establishing priorities for assisting States in developing their capacity. Some countries
also require inspections to be conducted at the start of the licensing period. Capacity building efforts
have been conducted for several years through various initiatives and, especially through the IOTC
Secretariat, with direct support from the EU and other regional initiatives. The level of implementation is
therefore uneven, with only Seychelles and Mauritius conducting regular inspections of vessels coming
into port.
Another opportunity to conduct inspections has been presented with the expansion in 2010 of the
measure to monitor transshipment at sea. The monitoring of the transshipment is conducted through
23 There has been confusion in some of the coastal States in the WIO (and in some of the projects supporting coastal
States) as to their role in ensuring compliance of not only foreign-flagged vessels but also vessels under their own flag. A
common misconception is that the term IUU only refers to foreign-flagged vessels fishing without a fishing authorisation, or
violating some of the terms of the fishing authorisation.
Page 17
placing observers on all cargo vessels transshipping at sea with fishing vessels. The revision of the
measure requires observers to conduct inspections at sea on board fishing vessels, which has led to an
increase in the number of potential infractions reported to the IOTC Compliance Committee.
2.2.4 Observer programmes
There has been confusion concerning the various initiatives to establish an observer programme in the
region. IOTC Members have agreed to establish a nationally implemented Regional Observer Scheme
with the primary objective to obtain a better estimate of the catch by species in all tuna fisheries. That
is, the role of the observers is to be a scientific one, and it is not expected that they will verify
compliance. The Resolution requires a low 5 % coverage of the fishing operations of larger vessels. In
fisheries where placing an observer on board is not feasible, such as artisanal fisheries, the Resolution
requests that a sampling programme be implemented with an equivalent sampling coverage to that of
the on-board programme.
Coastal states are often willing to place observers on board foreign-flagged vessels in order to verify
compliance, erroneously believing that these observed trips count towards their 5 % coverage. The
SWIOFP (discussed in section 1.2) developed training materials and carried out observer training in
countries in the region, although national observer programmes are not operational.
DWFN have not had much coverage either in terms of observers. The EU purse seine fleet has
highlighted that the need to have security personnel on board (typically three or four per vessel), due to
piracy, limits its ability to have observers on board as well. However, there has been no formal
derogation of the obligation to carry observers for any fleet. In fact, from 2014, some vessels in the
purse seine fleet will carry observers on all trips in addition to carrying armed personnel24.
2.2.5 National MCS capacities in the region
A recent review25 focused on MCS capacities in seven countries (Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Seychelles, Somalia and the United Republic of Tanzania) in order to analyse and
benchmark MCS capacity and to identify gaps. Seychelles and Mauritius emerged as the countries with
the strongest capacity for MCS in the region, with Kenya, Madagascar and Tanzania having partial to
weak capacity and the Comoros and Somalia having the weakest capacity. The report also concluded
that the countries inspected had a limited capacity to oversee the offshore tuna industrial fishery, to
monitor its catches or to inspect the vessels, reinforcing the idea that strong regional and international
cooperation and intelligence sharing are required.
2.2.6 EU IUU Regulation
The implementation of the EU IUU Catch Certificate Scheme (CCS) for third countries exporting marine
fisheries products to the EU, and for EU Members exporting fish to third countries if requested to do so
by those third countries, is laid down in Council Regulation EC 1005/2008 and subsequent legislation.
Countries can only export to the EU if the EU has published the flag State notification, which certifies
that a) it has in place national arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws,
regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing
vessels, and b) its public authorities are empowered to attest the veracity of the information contained
in catch certificates and to carry out verifications of such certificates on request from the Member
States. The notification includes the necessary information to identify those authorities. A full list of
24 As part of attempts to obtain Marine Stewardship Council certification

25 Bergh, 2012.
Page 18
notifications for countries in the WIO, and for DWFNs that have had vessels active in the WIO in recent
years, is provided in Annex D.
The importance of traceability in IUU issues and the CCS is noted, but it has not been within the scope
of this report to assess traceability issues in WIO countries.
The European Commission recently (15 November 2012) passed a proposal for a Decision26 notifying a
number of countries that they were considered to be potential non-cooperating third countries with
regard to the IUU Regulation. No countries in the WIO were included in the Decision, but some
countries are members of the IOTC.
Cooperation and compliance on matters of IUU fishing is considered by the EU as a pre-requisite for
discussion with third countries on potential FPAs/Protocols. In this context, it should be noted that
Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 Article 38(9) [Action in respect of non-cooperating third
countries] states that ‘the Commission shall not enter into negotiations to conclude a bilateral fisheries
agreement or fisheries partnership agreements with such countries’.
2.3 External support for improvements in management and conservation

Presentation of information on previous and ongoing support for management and conservation
improvements in the region is important in the context of the ex ante evaluations of possible
FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya and the EU and Tanzania, as financial contributions
provided for sectoral support must be used to build on previous initiatives while not duplicating
previous/ongoing activities.
2.3.1 EU engagement in the region
This section summarises EU-funded programmes/projects in the region that focus specifically on
fisheries management and conservation, i.e. regional and country-specific support. Some examples of
EU-supported projects include:
 SmartFish (in cooperation with FAO), has five main areas of work:
– Fisheries development and management, addressing the weaknesses of fisheries legal
frameworks and existing policies, the poor quality of information, need for institutional
capacity building;
– Fisheries governance, including promotion of principles of good governance at national and
regional level; compliance with existing agreements; cost-effectiveness and participatory
approaches in fisheries management; evaluation of current governance systems;
– Effective MCS through support to regional surveillance, exchange of information, support
for capacity building for operational personnel;
– Regional fish trade through the development of a regional fisheries trade strategy; and
– Food security through an integrated plan that will address food availability and access,
proper utilisation and stability of the fish supply.
SmartFish is one of the biggest regional programmes for fisheries in Africa. There are 20
eligible countries under the programme: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles,
26EC Decision of 15 November 2012 on notifying third countries that the Commission considers as possible of being
identified as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005 /2008 establishing a Community
system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:354:0001:01:EN:HTML (accessed 6 October 2013).
Page 19
Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Mozambique, Reunion Island and South Africa are participating; in some activities,
although not as eligible countries.
 A two-year project ‘Accompany Developing Countries in complying with the implementation of
Regulation 1005/2008 on IUU fishing’ (EU IUU project). This project provided assistance to a
number of countries in the WIO in complying with the EU IUU regulation. In each country where
support was provided (Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles)
MCS was reviewed, along with an assessment of performance as measured against best
practice for coastal state control, flag state control, port state control, and control of the market.
Recommendations were made to address any weaknesses identified.
 The ACP FISH II Programme. A 4.5-year programme financed by the European Development
Fund on behalf of ACP countries. The aim of the programme is to improve fisheries
management in ACP countries to ensure that fisheries resources under the jurisdiction of these
countries are exploited in a sustainable manner. This programme has supported projects
distributed around five themes as follows:
– Improved fisheries policies, legislation and management plans at regional and national
level;
– Strengthened MCS capabilities;
– Enhanced national and regional research strategies;
– Improved business support and private sector investment; and
– Increased knowledge sharing on management and trade.
Many countries in the region have benefited from the ACP FISH II Programme, as detailed in
Annex H
 Yemen Fisheries Support Programme. An International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) Fisheries Investment Programme, co-financed by the EU, which will run from 2012 to
2018. The project goal is to improve the economic status of small fisher households by creating
sustainable and diversified economic opportunities for poor women and men in fishing
communities. The project will focus on sustainable resource management and value chain
development.
In 2004-2007, the COI implemented a ‘Pilot Project for MCS of large pelagics in the Indian Ocean’
financed under 9th European Development Fund (EDF). Its achievements include the setting up of port
inspection schemes in key unloading ports in Seychelles and Mauritius, a review of the national
legislation of the participating countries to determine the level of implementation of the regional
measures, and exploration of innovative uses of satellite imagery to assist in the fight against IUU
operations.
In 2007, the European Commission and the IOC signed a framework partnership to implement a
regional plan for fisheries surveillance in the south-western Indian Ocean (hereinafter referred to as the
Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance or Plan Regional pour la Surveillance de Pêche, (PRSP))
agreed by the five fisheries ministers of the IOC countries via a joint statement.
The PRSP was designed to be the main tool for the regional strategy for fisheries monitoring required
by IOC Member States in strengthening cooperation between the operational structures, data exchange
for the organisation of regional joint patrols, fisheries surveillance and fighting illegal fishing. The
specific objective was to pool and share existing capacities of coastal states in the region to consolidate
and perpetuate the regional MCS strategy by monitoring regional fisheries through targeted and
deterrent controls based on risk analysis. This was to be achieved through maritime joint patrols and
aerial patrols, and active exchange of data including VMS data, remote sensing of fishing activities by
Page 20
satellite radar, data from various other sources and neighbouring countries, and the establishment of an
operational analysis group. The framework partnership agreement has been extended through to early
April 2014, when it should continue to be funded by the EU through SmartFish.
Following the mid-term review recommendations of the PRSP, which were adopted by the EU and the
five country members in October 2011, the implementation of the PRSP was positive in terms of
fighting IUU fishing and in terms of regional integration. The mid-term review report suggests the
continuation of activities, and mobilising of complementary resources allocated to the MCS component
implemented by the IOC SmartFish programme, involving in addition to new partners as, Kenya,
Tanzania, Somalia and Mozambique.
The PRSP has organised 35 joint patrols since 2007. This represents 825 hours of air patrols, 988 days
of patrol vessels at sea where 375 vessels were inspected. Twenty infringements were reported and 11
vessels arrested by the national fisheries inspectors involved with the regional missions. None of the
offences was reported to IOTC and none resulted in the inclusion of a vessel into the IUU list.
Finally, it should also be noted that EU support for fisheries conservation and management
improvements is provided by the sectoral support component of the FPAs/Protocols in region (as
discussed in Section 3.1.1), which provide considerable amounts of funding for priority issues identified
by the third countries.
A summary of the support discussed above is presented in the table below.
Table 2.1: recent and current support by the EU to fisheries management and conservation in
the WIO
Project/programme title Scope Status and timing
SmartFish project Fisheries development and management, fisheries Ongoing
governance, MCS, fish trade, and food security
ACP FISH II Programme Policy, legislation, research, private sector, trade Completed November
2013
EU IUU project Implementation of the EU IUU regulation Completed 2012
Regional Tuna Tagging Enhance tuna management by improving estimates Completed 2009
Project of exploitation rate and biological characteristics
Regional Pilot Project for Define and test the conditions for the establishment 2004-2007
the Surveillance, Control of regional collaboration in the field of fisheries MCS,
and Monitoring of large for the sustainable management of large pelagic
migratory pelagic fish migratory fish
Regional plan for fisheries Support for joint patrols, exchange of MCS 2007-2014
surveillance information
Yemen Fisheries Support Sustainable resource management and value 2012-2018
Programme chain development
Sectoral support provided Various, as agreed by third countries as being Ongoing
under FPAs/Protocols of priority
2.3.2 Other support
There are also a large number of other donors active in the WIO, supporting a range of projects aimed
at improving tuna fisheries management.
Page 21
2.3.2.1 FAO
FAO has contributed historically through the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, which evolved into IOTC and SIOFA as management bodies, and SWIOFC as an advisory
body. Both IOTC and SWIOFC retain their links to FAO, although IOTC enjoys functional and financial
autonomy. In spite of this autonomy, IOTC Members deposit their contributions with FAO, which
charges administrative fees on all contributions, and the administrative and financial procedures
followed in the use of those funds are those of the FAO. There is still disagreement amongst FAO and
some Members as to whether IOTC has legal personality, outside of FAO, that would allow it to enter
into agreements with third Parties. This, in addition to the difficulties of engaging directly with Taiwan
(also stemming from the relationship to FAO), has resulted in the desire of several Members to sever
links with FAO. In addition to the institution building, FAO continues to assist individual countries
through Technical Cooperation Projects, and is also a partner in the implementation of the SmartFish
project.
FAO is also leading the global project, Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity
Conservation in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Partly funded by GEF, this five-year project
started in 2013 has three main intended outcomes:
1. Promotion of sustainable management (including rights-based management) of tuna
fisheries, in accordance with an ecosystem approach;
2. Strengthening and harmonising MCS to address IUU; and
3. Reducing ecosystem impacts of tuna fishing.
This project incorporates a partnership with WWF and the five tuna Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations (RFMOs), for a total of USD 178 million (EUR 132 million), of which GEF will provide
USD 27 million (EUR 20 million).
2.3.2.2 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
IFAD has two ongoing tuna projects in the Maldives. The first is the Post-Tsunami Agriculture and
Fisheries Rehabilitation Programme (PT-AFReP), set up after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and
implemented since 2006 with a planned closure in early 2014. The programme is backed by two IFAD
loans and a grant, with a total project value of USD 4.5 million (EUR 3.3 million). This programme has
focused on building capacity for fisheries management in the Maldives, has funded participation in
IOTC meetings and overseas training in fisheries policy and management, has supported some
developments in MCS, and has contributed to the costs of the Marine Stewardship Council
accreditation of Maldivian skipjack tuna (which itself led to some fisheries management improvements
due to the conditions set during the certification process).
The second project in the Maldives is the Fisheries and Agriculture Diversification Project (FADiP)
(2009-2015), with a total budget of USD 5.4 million (EUR 4 million) which is working with local
producers to ensure value-addition and improved marketing of Maldive Fish (see section 5 for more
details about trade in this product).
In Mozambique, the Securing Artisanal Fishers’ Resource Rights Project (PRODIRPA) aims to improve
the livelihoods of artisanal fishing communities by strengthening their security over and management of
natural resources (Implementation: Institute for Development of Small-scale Fisheries, Mozambique,
2013-2016).
A country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) approved in 2011 sets out a framework for the
partnership between IFAD and the Government of Mozambique from 2011 to 2015. The COSOP builds
on IFAD’s experience and lessons learned from past operations in the country, including facilitating the
introduction of new technologies and services for fishing communities.
Page 22
In the past IFAD has also had programmes in Mauritius to support sustainable development of
fisheries, and in Seychelles to develop infrastructure to facilitate the operations of artisanal fishermen.
2.3.2.3 World Bank
The World Bank has supported several fisheries initiatives in the WIO through support to large regional
projects (such as SWIOFP, see section 1.2) or support to existing regional fishery bodies, such as
SWIOFC, in addition to national-level projects.
The Tanzanian Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP) aimed to strengthen
the sustainable management and use of Tanzania’s EEZ, territorial seas and coastal resources,
resulting in enhanced revenue collection, reduced threats to the environment, better livelihoods for
participating coastal communities living in the coastal districts and improved institutional arrangements.
The project closed in early 2013.
The overall objective of the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) is to promote an
environmentally sustainable management of Kenya’s coastal and marine resources. The objective of
its fishery-related component is sustainable management through:
 Promoting and developing fisheries governance including support for increased capacity to
undertake MCS, and optimising the use of deep-sea resources within the EEZ;
 Promoting fisheries management and research capacity, including assessment of fish stocks,
ecosystem approach to fisheries, comanagement of fisheries and fishery management plans;
 Promoting and developing value-addition of fish catches in the coastal fisheries; and
 Promoting and developing aquaculture through research and technical support.
The development objective of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth
Program (SWIOFish), currently under preparation, is to increase the shared benefits from economic
growth based on sustainable fisheries and coastal marine resources. The specific objectives of the first
phase of the programme are to strengthen the capacity for fisheries’ economic governance and
harnessing to national economies starting with Comoros, Mozambique and Seychelles; and to
consolidate and strengthen regional cooperation on fisheries and marine resource management among
the country members of the SWIOFC.
2.3.2.4 WWF
The WWF’s Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (CEA NI) is one of fourteen large-scale programmes
that the WWF Network is embarking on in order to achieve transformational change by working at local,
national and international scales, linking work on the ground with advocacy work and engagement.
The vision for the CEA NI is that Coastal East Africa’s unique and globally significant natural resource
base provides the essential goods and services that support biodiversity as well as economic
development and the livelihoods of present and future generations. To achieve this, WWF is working
with governments and other key partners in the region – Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique – to
implement the following strategies:
 Strengthening natural resources governance for effective management of marine fisheries and
coastal forest resources and improved effectiveness of institutions in implementation of policies
and regulations;
 Adoption of sustainable trade and investment approach with specific focus on shrimp, tuna and
timber commodities; and
 Secure the remaining high-value conservation areas in Coastal East Africa, through a number
of initiatives, including protected areas, land use planning, etc.
In addition, WWF plays an active role through its network of offices in the Indian Ocean, and through
the Smart Fishing Initiative, a WWF global fisheries programme facilitating a process of consultation
Page 23
between developing coastal States towards adopting common positions in IOTC, as well as
encouraging countries to engage in the certification of their fisheries through eco-labelling initiatives.
2.3.2.5 African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), FAO and WWF
The AU’s Strategic Partnership for Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund (SPFIF)27 is jointly supported
by AU-IBAR, FAO and WWF. This pan-African project (2005-2015) aims to promote sustainable use of
fisheries resources and the management of marine ecosystems that support them, to facilitate poverty
eradication and enhance sustainable income growth within fishing communities.
2.3.2.6 FISH-I Africa project
The FISH-I Africa project has been developed through a partnership between the five coastal States of
Comoros, Kenya, Mozambique, Seychelles and Tanzania, the Stop Illegal Fishing (SIF) working group
of the NEPAD Planning and Coordination Agency (NPCA), and the Pew Environment Group. These
partners will work to build cooperation, information-sharing and analytical systems amongst the key
southeast African coastal states to prepare them for targeted enforcement actions against IUU fishing
operators in the western Indian Ocean. The work will also involve cooperation with regional partners
such as the IOTC and the IOC. The partner countries have committed to establish a platform for real-
time sharing of sometimes sensitive data on vessels, their movements, catch and owners, aimed at
enabling nations to take timely action against suspected illegal operators.
2.3.2.7 UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
NEPAD, a technical body of the African Union was set up to assist in African strategic development.
One area of focus is Agriculture and Food Security. Its activities in this area are complemented by the
Partnership for African Fisheries (funded by DFID) that aims to aid growth in the fisheries sector,
improve governance, further develop trade and combat illegal fishing. This is done mainly through the
activities of SIF. In partnership with governments, civil society, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), international organisations and the fishing industry, SIF is working to promote coherent policy
reform across Africa relating to illegal fishing, whether taking place in inland or marine waters and
whether operating at the small-scale or industrial level. In order to achieve these aims the SIF
programme is involved in working towards the overarching goal of African fisheries reform and the
formation of a home-grown African voice on issues relating to fisheries.
2.3.2.8 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
COMESA, was established in 1994, represents one of the most important economic groupings on the
continent. With 19 Member States, including Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles from the WIO,
COMESA forms a major marketplace for both internal and external trading. COMESA’s mission is to
‘Endeavour to achieve sustainable economic and social progress in all Member States through
increased co-operation and integration in all fields of development particularly in trade, customs and
monetary affairs, transport, communication and information, technology, industry and energy, gender,
agriculture, environment and natural resources’. With regard to fisheries, the recently agreed COMESA
Fisheries and Aquaculture Strategy aims to achieve long-term productivity of fisheries and aquaculture,
to strengthen food security and trade benefits of fish products to domestic, regional and international
markets as well as ensuring alignment of programmes and projects in the sector. COMESA will pursue
the establishment of a Common Marine Fisheries Investment and Management Policy supporting trade
and investment in fish and fishery products. Another area of focus will be the promotion of production,
27 http://www.spfif.org/ (accessed 10 October 2013).
Page 24
processing and marketing of value-added fish and fishery products based on cultured tilapia, shrimp as
well as captured Nile perch, tuna and dagaa.
2.3.2.9 Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation of Japan (OFCF)
In 2002 IOTC and OFCF entered into an agreement by which, using resources provided by OFCF,
IOTC and OFCF staff would implement a number of activities and capacity building to strengthen data
collection, processing and reporting systems in fisheries that catch tuna and tuna-like species. The
OFCF is an organisation based on contributions from the government of Japan and the Japanese
private sector to implement bilateral projects in developing countries to promote closer ties to Japan.
The IOTC/OFCF Project was the first to be executed in a multilateral environment through RFMOs. The
programme has conducted activities in India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand since its inception in 2003.
Page 25
3 Access to fishing zones in the region
3.1 Types of access

Access by distant water fishing vessels for tuna and tuna-like species in the EEZs of WIO States can
be granted through a number of different mechanisms, with the main methods of obtaining access as
follows28.
3.1.1 European Union FPAs.
FPAs provide tuna fishing opportunities to defined numbers of purse seine and longline vessels, and
are based on financial contributions by the EU and vessel owners based on reference tonnages, with
additional contributions due if these reference tonnages are exceeded. Importantly the FPAs also
provide for financial contributions for sectoral support funding. Protocols typically, but not always, last
for three years after which time they can be re-negotiated, representing a key difference with private
access agreements which are only applicable on an annual basis and may be subject to modification.
Given that most of the purse seine vessels operating in the WIO are from EU Member States, FPAs
represent the most important access mechanism in the region for purse seine fisheries, as well as
providing access for longline vessels from the EU. Table 3.1 below provides information about the
current FPAs/Protocols in force.
Table 3.1: summary of active EU fishing agreements in WIO
Duration of the Protocol Vessels provided fishing
Coastal State Type agreement duration and opportunities
expiry date
7 years renewable 3 years. 45 PS, 25 LL
Comoros Tuna
31.12.2013
6 years renewable 2 years.
Madagascar Tuna 40 PS, 34 LL> 100 GT, 22< 100 GT
31.12.2014
Mozambique Tuna 43 PS, 32 LL
31.01.2015
Seychelles Tuna 48 PS, 12 LL
17.1.2014
3 years from
Mauritius (see Tuna 3 years renewable date of entry 41 PS, 49 LL, 25 PandL
note)
into force
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/ (accessed 10 September 2013).
PS = purse seine, LL = longline, PandL = pole and line, GT = gross tonnes. Note: FPA with Mauritius has been
initialled but is not yet in force, and legislative processes that must first be completed are ongoing at the time of
writing. New Protocols with Seychelles and Comoros from January 2014 will be for a period of six and three
years respectively.
28 The Maldivian and Indian governments do not allow any foreign fishing activity in their waters.
Page 26
3.1.2 Private commercial agreements between foreign associations or companies, and governments
in the region
These agreements typically provide access per year, and information about their existence or the exact
basis for these agreements is generally not publicly available/published. However, some examples of
agreements that provide for access to highly migratory species are as follows:
 Comoros: Agreements with both Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros
Congeladores (ANABAC) (signed in 2009) and Organización de Productores Asociados de
Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC) (signed in 2012) for purse seine fishing vessels
flagged in Seychelles, which are automatically renewable every two years unless specifically
cancelled by either party29. Around seven vessels from ANABAC and six from OPAGAC use
these agreements30;
 Kenya: According to the 2011 National Report to the IOTC, in 2010 the Kenyan authorities
issued 34 vessel authorisations to tuna purse seine vessels, through agreements with
individual companies or fishing associations. This included eight registered in Seychelles, 13
registered in Spain, nine from France and four from Mayotte. Corresponding figures for 2013,
reported in the Kenya ex ante evaluation report31, are that as of October 2013 Kenya’s EEZ
had been accessed by 36 foreign purse seine vessels from four different countries – Republic
of Korea, Spain, Seychelles and France. In 2011 the Kenya authorities reported to the IOTC
that, due to piracy, since 2007 Kenya has not received any requests for vessel authorisations
by longline vessels. This information possibly contradicts an earlier report to the IOTC in 2009,
when vessel authorisations for some longline vessels were claimed to have been issued in
200832, but the consultants have confirmed that at the present time there are no foreign
longline vessel authorisations issued by Kenya33;
 Madagascar: There are 11 agreements, including eight with individual companies and
associations from France/Réunion, Spain, Seychelles, and Japan (six for fishing vessels and
two for support vessels), and three with local companies. All agreements typically run for three
years34;
 Mauritius: has an agreement with the Federation of Japan fishery cooperative associations
(signed in May 2007) for up to 50 longline vessels. And while the EU FPA Protocol is not in
force, EU vessels are taking private fishing authorisations for 90 days subject to renewal35;
 Mozambique: fishing authorisations are provided in 2013 for one longliner and two purse seine
vessels from Korea, six purse seine vessels from Seychelles, and 16 longline vessels from
Japan. Each vessel is allowed to catch a maximum of 300 t per year36;
 Seychelles: purse seine vessels are reported in NFDS et al. (2013) as being from Iran, Korea,
Mayotte and Thailand, and longline vessels from Tanzania. Other information suggests that
29 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013).

30 http://transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013).
31 Poseidon et al., 2014.
32 http://transparentsea.co/index.php?title=Kenya:Offshore_fisheries#cite_ref-1 (accessed 7 October 2013).
33 Fisheries Department, pers. comm., 6 October 2013.
34 www.transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013), and Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques, pers.
comm., 23 September 2013.

35 Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security, Mauritius, pers. comm., 13 September 2013.
36 Administração Nacional das Pescas, pers. comm., 1 October 2013.
Page 27
China, Japan, Philippines and Tanzania have longliners flagged by them that are authorised to
fish in Seychelles, and that purse seiners from Korea and Mayotte are authorised37; and
 Tanzania: EU and Seychelles-flagged purse seine vessels are provided fishing authorisations
under private agreements with ANABAC and OPAGAC, and French vessels under individual
private agreements pending signature of an agreement with Organisation de Producteurs de
Thon Congelé (ORTHONGEL).
3.1.3 Bilateral intergovernmental agreements

These types of agreements are between two countries in the region, or between a WIO country and a
government from a DWFN with vessels wishing to fish in a WIO country.
In terms of intra-regional agreements, Mauritius and Seychelles have bilateral cooperation in the form
of two separate agreements that have been in operation for about 10 years and are automatically
renewed every two years. The agreements enable reciprocal access to each other’s waters for 10
purse seine and 20 longline vessels, subject to vessel authorisation applications and appropriate fees
being paid.
With respect to bilateral agreements between DWFN and WIO countries, other known examples are the
agreements for longline vessels between Seychelles and Japan and Seychelles and Taiwan38. No other
specific examples of bilateral intergovernmental agreements were reported to the consultants during
the consultations completed during the preparation of this report.
3.1.4 Reflagging, chartering, joint ventures or similar arrangements between WIO states and foreign
investors
A number of other mechanisms are available for owners of vessels to obtain access to the resources in
WIO countries. Some examples include:
 Oman: the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries provides a total allowable catch (TAC) for tuna
to Omani-owned fishing companies. These companies neither have a fleet to catch the
allocated quota nor the crew to carry out the fishing operations, and generally sell their quota to
foreign Taiwanese and Korean longliners. They are able to do so without any involvement or
intervention by the Ministry39;
 Pakistan: there are possibilities for access through joint ventures or if foreign companies make
sizeable investments in the Korangi fish harbour in Karachi, but there have been no foreign
fishing authorisations issued to purse seine vessels since 2005 or longliners since 20084041;
 Seychelles: seven purse seiners with European ownership interests and previously with EU
Member State flags are now flagged in the Seychelles, and there are also a number of Asian-
owned longliners flagged in Seychelles. These vessels apply for fishing authorisations in
Seychelles under what is called a ‘private agreement’42; and
 South Africa: there are on average 10-15 foreign-flagged Asian longline vessels operating in
South Africa each year. These vessels are mainly from Japan, and are engaged in chartering
agreements as provided by ICCAT Rec 02-21, with vessels targeting albacore, bigeye and
37 http://transparentsea.co/images/d/d3/List_of_licensed_fishing_vessels_Seychelles.pdf (accessed 7 October 2013).

38 NFDS et al., 2013.
39 Department of Marine Science and Fisheries, Sultan Qaboos University, pers. comm., 11 September 2013.
40 Taiwanese longliners were most active in the early 1990s in Pakistan’s waters, from 2005 fished each year for only a few
months, and ceased operating in Pakistan’s waters from 2008 (WWF, 2012).
41 Fisheries Development Board, pers. comm., 13 September 2013.
42 NFDS et al., 2013.
Page 28
yellowfin tuna. Under charter agreements, the vessels fishing for a South African rights holder
are under the management of the South African fisheries authority43.
3.1.5 The specific case of Somalia
In Somalia, the lack of a functioning government in recent years due to the civil war has meant that
there have been no formal governmental agreements with foreign vessels to fish in Somali waters
(either government to government or government to private sector), although regions / semi-
autonomous ‘states’ for example in Somaliland and Puntland, had some arrangements with foreign
vessels in the mid-1990s, issued through fishing authorisation brokers in Dubai. It is likely that any
foreign fishing activity, to the extent that it takes place given the piracy risks, does so on an IUU basis.
The lack of a declared EEZ also makes the licensing situation complex both legally and practically.
Some efforts, in part supported by FAO, have recently taken place to declare the EEZ and to establish
a Fisheries Licensing Authority for Somalia following the creation of the Federal Government of Somalia
in August 2012, but no such authority is yet in place. It should also be noted that Kenya and Somalia
have a disputed maritime boundary, an issue that is reported on more fully in the Kenya ex ante
evaluation report44.
3.1.6 The specific case of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)
On 1 April 2010 the BIOT Commissioner proclaimed a marine protected area (MPA) in BIOT. No further
fishing authorisations have been issued since that date and the last fishing authorisations expired on 31
October 2010. From 1 November 2010 onwards all BIOT waters (to 200 nautical miles), including
coastal and pelagic areas, became a no-take MPA to commercial fishing. Diego Garcia and its territorial
waters are excluded from the MPA (the MPA exclusion zone) and include a recreational fishery. BIOT
itself does not operate a flag registry and has no commercial tuna fleet or fishing port.
3.2 Costs of access

Obtaining information about the costs of access is problematic during a desk-based project (no field
visits were made for the preparation of this report specifically to collect information on costs of access,
with missions only made to Kenya and Tanzania to inform the ex ante evaluation reports), and there is
understandable sensitivity around this data, specifically the fees paid under bilateral arrangements.
There are however moves towards greater transparency of such information in the south of the WIO
region, particularly in the context of information available from www.transparentsea.co, and as part of
World Bank dialogue with countries. Comoros, Seychelles and Mozambique have already made such
commitments and others are expected to follow45. There is not thought to be any recently published
report summarising the costs of access in all individual countries in the WIO, although reports on
access costs in other areas of the world, for example western central Pacific Ocean and west Africa,
suggest that access costs (whether they be as part of bilateral government agreements, or agreements
between private parties and governments selling access) may provide a rate of return to countries
selling access of between 5-7 % of the sales value of the fish being caught46. It should also be noted
that additional technical measures or conditions associated with different types of access makes a
comparison of the costs of different types of access difficult.
43 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 2013b, and Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, pers.
45 World Bank, pers. comm., 12 September 2013.
46 Poseidon et al., 2013; Cofrepeche et al., 2013.
Page 29
For the WIO, some specific examples of costs of access that are available include those for the EU
FPAs in the region as provided in Table 3.2. And for Seychelles, MRAG et al.47 provides data on
access costs, see Table 3.3.
Table 3.2: costs of active EU fishing agreements in WIO (EUR)
Annual fishing Annual fishing
EU Earmarked for
authorisation advance authorisation advance
Coastal State contribution fisheries policy
fee per vessel(purse fee per vessel
per year development
seine) (longline)
Comoros 615 250 300 000 10 600 6 300
Madagascar 1 525 000 550 000 14 400 10 500
7 200 (< 250 GT),
Mozambique 980 000 460 000 14 600
11 800 (> 250 GT)
9 000 (< 250 GT),
Seychelles 5 600 000 2 240 000 61 000
12 000 (> 250 GT)
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/ accessed 27 October 2013
Note: Costs per vessel based on EUR 100 per tonne, and reference tonnages (GT)
Table 3.3: summary of fishing agreements in force in the Seychelles (non-EU)
Country with Type of

Cost for fishing authorisation
agreement vessel
USD 24 000 / EUR 19 048 per year or USD 17 500 /
Taiwan Longline EUR 13 888 for six months and USD 5 500 / EUR 4 365 per
month
USD 22 000 / EUR 17 460 per year or USD 14 500 /
Japan Longline EUR 11 508 for six months, and USD 4 000 / EUR 3 175 for
each extra 30 days
Private agreement USD 24 000 / EUR 19 048 per year or USD 17 500 /
for non-Asian Longline EUR 13 888 for six months, and USD 5 500 / EUR 4 365 per
flagged vessels month
Private agreement
Purse
for Seychelles USD 90 000 / EUR 71 429 per year
seine
flagged vessels
Private agreement
Purse
for non-Seychelles USD 120 000 / EUR 95 238 per year
seine
flagged vessels
Source: Adapted from NFDS et al., 2013
Note: Original table compiled from Seychelles Fishing Authority information
Some other examples (which are selective and do not provide a complete picture of authorisation fees
paid in the region) have been obtained by the consultants during the preparation of this report, and
include:
47 MRAG et al., 2013
Page 30
 Comoros: Costs of access for purse seine vessels under the private agreement with ANABAC
are USD 13 000/year (EUR 9 770 per year), and EUR 13 000 per year under the agreement
with OPAGAC48;
 Kenya: Previous/official fees for purse seine vessels are USD 50 000 (EUR 36 945) per year.
However, due to lower demand created by the Somali piracy situation, since 2010 the Kenyan
authorities have lowered the vessel authorisation fee to USD 30 000 (EUR 22 167) in an
attempt to attract more fishing vessels49. The Fisheries Act allows for varying durations of
fishing authorisation validity for longline vessels (noting that no longline vessel authorisations
are currently issued) and thus varying costs of EUR 7 575 (USD 10 000) for one month
EUR 15 151 (USD 20 000) for three months, and EUR 22 727 (USD 30 000) for 12 months.
 Madagascar: For the private agreements with the government, payments by foreign companies
are generally consistent across the agreements, and are based on vessel weight, with purse
seine access fees per year ranging from USD 3 000 (EUR 2 243) for vessels of under 100
gross tonnes (GT) to USD 5 000 (EUR 3 739) for vessels over 1 500 GT, and fees for
longliners ranging from USD 2 000 (EUR 1 496) for vessels of under 100 GT to USD 4 500
(EUR 3 365) for vessels over 1 500 GT. For national vessels payment is based on the power
and the category of the vessel and fixed by law50;
 Mozambique: Vessels are divided into different groups for fishing authorisation proposes, and
pay different access fees. Costs for purse seine vessels are: (i) national with port base in
Mozambique USD 15 000 (EUR 11 103) per year; (ii) national with port base abroad
USD 28 000 (EUR 20 726) per year, (iii) foreign with port base in Mozambique USD 28 000
(EUR 20 726) per year, (iv) foreign with port base abroad USD 35 000 (EUR 25 908) per year.
Costs for tuna longline vessels are: (i) national with port base in Mozambique USD 10 000
(EUR 7 402) per year; (ii) national with port base abroad USD 26 000 (EUR 19 246) per year,
(iii) foreign with port base in Mozambique USD 26 000 (EUR 19 246) per year and (iv) foreign
with port base abroad USD 32 000 (EUR 23 687) per year51;
 Oman: Foreign vessels pay ship and crew fishing authorisation fees to the Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries in the range of OMR 700 (EUR 1 355) and registration fees with the
Ministry of Transportation of around OMR 1000 (EUR 1 937), with exact fees depending on the
length of the vessel and the engine power. In addition, the foreign commercial fishing vessels
pay a fee to Omani companies having the catch quota, equivalent to OMR 27 per tonne
(EUR 52 per tonne)52;
 Pakistan: While there are currently no foreign fishing authorisations, should such fishing
authorisations be issued, tuna longliners and purse seiners up to 350 GT would pay a royalty of
USD 5 000 (EUR 3 771) and an annual fishing authorisation fee of PKR 500 000 (EUR 3 571).
Tuna longliners and purse seiners over 350 GT would pay a royalty of USD 10 000
(EUR 7 543) and an annual fishing authorisation fee of PKR 1 million (EUR 7 142)53;
48 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013).

49 Breuil and Snijman l., 2012, and ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013.
50 www.transparentsea.co (accessed 7 October 2013), and Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques, pers.

51 Administração Nacional das Pescas, pers. comm., 1 October 2013.
52 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, pers. comm., 19 September 2013.
53 Fisheries Development Board, pers. comm., 13 September 2013.
Page 31
 Seychelles/Mauritius: The two reciprocal agreements require fees to be paid of USD 6 000
(EUR 4 509) for an initial period of 90 days and USD 2 000 (EUR 1 503) for any additional 30
days or part thereof for access by longline vessels. For purse seine vessels Seychelles vessels
fishing in Mauritius have to pay USD 5 000 (EUR 3 758) for each period of 90 days, while
vessels from Mauritius fishing in Seychelles have to pay USD 17 500 (EUR 13 153) for each
period of 90 days54;
 Mauritius: EU purse seine vessels are currently (in the absence of a Protocol to an FPA) paying
quarterly fishing authorisation fees of USD 8 400 (EUR 6 214)55;
 Mayotte: Seychelles purse seine vessels are paying fishing authorisation fees of EUR 10 000,
plus EUR 100 per tonne for catches above 100 tonnes56;
 South Africa: Under the charter arrangements discussed above, vessels are required to have a
foreign vessel fishing authorisation costing ZAR 14 372 (EUR 1 097) per year, and a catch
permit costing ZAR 831 (EUR 63) per year issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries57. Costs to foreign vessels payable to local South African rights holders are not
publicly available; and
 Tanzania: EU purse seine vessels fishing in Tanzania pay USD 38 000 (EUR 28 111) per
year58.
Table 3.4 below provides a summary of the access costs being charged by the countries for which data
have been obtained, as presented above.
Table 3.4: summary table of current costs of access charged by selected WIO countries
(EUR/year)
WIO country Costs of access (purse seine) Costs of access (longline)
Comoros 9 700 - 13 000 6 300
Kenya 22 167 N/A
Madagascar 2 243 - 14 400 1 496 - 10 500
Mauritius 15 032 - 24 856 18 036
Mayotte 10 000 N/A
Mozambique 11 103 - 25 908 7 200 - 23 687
Pakistan 7 342 - 14 685 7 342 - 14 685
Seychelles 52 612 - 95 238 9 000 - 19 048
Tanzania 28 111 N/A
Source: Consultants’ compilation based on data sources and information provided in text
N/A = not available or not applicable
54 Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security, Mauritius, pers. comm., 13 September 2013.
55 ANABAC, pers. comm., 9 October 2013.
57 Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, pers. comm., 19 September 2013.
Page 32
4 The tuna fishery in the western Indian Ocean
4.1 WIO catches in the context of global tuna fisheries

Global catches of the main species caught by tuna fisheries59 in 2011 amounted to 4.6 million tonnes.
Of these global catches, the whole Indian Ocean provided slightly less than 20 % over the last five
years, after reaching a peak of 27 % in 2004, and is the second most important global area. Of the
catches in the Indian Ocean, the WIO provided around 65 % in the recent years, from a high of 85 % in
2005.
Figure 4.1: global tuna catches 2000-2011 (in millions of tonnes)

Source: FAO FishStat J
IOTC maintains records of tuna and tuna-like catches for all fleets operating the Indian Ocean. When
the fishing countries do not supply catches, the IOTC Secretariat estimates the catches for the missing
components. This is particularly relevant for the Indian Ocean as it is thought to be unique amongst
oceans in terms of the large percentage of the catch of tuna estimated to come from small-scale or
artisanal fisheries, as opposed to industrial fisheries. Catches from artisanal fleets are difficult to
estimate accurately, especially for countries with an extensive coastline, such as India and Indonesia.
Data from the last five complete years in the FAO databases, 2007-2011, show a predominance of
yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the catches of the WIO (see Table 4.1), accounting for almost 90 % of the
catches of the main five species. The large reductions in bigeye tuna and swordfish in the most recent
years are a direct consequence of the piracy activities on the longline operations in the fishing grounds
of Somalia (see section 4.10 for more discussion). Similarly, a disruption of the activities of the gillnet
fleet in the Somali region might have caused the decline in the skipjack fishery. However, the decline
during 2012-2013 of the piracy activities (see later discussion) might result in a rapid return to the
traditional fishing grounds.
59 In this context, we consider catches of albacore, skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin and the various species of bluefin tuna.
Page 33
As shown in the following table, the fishery for yellowfin tuna in the WIO is important at the global level,
accounting for almost 20 % of the global catches of the species, while other species represent less than
10 % of global catches.
Table 4.1: tuna catches from the WIO (2005-2011)
Catches 2011 (tonnes) as %
Catches 2007-2011 (tonnes)
of
Species
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 WIO catch Global catch
Skipjack 326 766 295 931 287 436 275 583 236 970 43.9 % 9.1 %
Yellowfin 247 435 221 078 200 682 222 064 242 558 44.9 % 19.8 %
Bigeye 84 919 68 009 63 202 42 060 36 213 6.7 % 9.4 %
Albacore 23 554 20 122 15 318 15 335 14 564 2.7 % 6.2 %
Swordfish 18 919 13 814 12 674 11 102 9 469 1.8 % 8.6 %
Total 701 593 618 954 579 312 566 144 539 774 100.0 % -
Source: FAO FishStatJ
Table 4.2: tuna catches from the WIO (2011), by fleet segment and species, in tonnes
Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Albacore Swordfish Total
Purse seine 130 413 112 604 21 840 725 N/A 265 581
Longline N/A 19 007 18 702 13 569 9 782 61 060
Pole and line 60 791 11 927 634 73 352
Gillnet 21 884 38 870 428 883 62 065
Handline 15 898 63 304 435 240 229 80 107
Total 228 986 245 712 42 039 14 534 10 894 542 165
Source: IOTC, Nominal Catch Database
Notes: The small differences in totals shown in this table and Table 4.1 above are due to the use of different
databases as the source of data used in the two tables. Spatial plots of the location of catches of different
species by different fleet types are provided in Annex L
4.2 The purse seine fishery

4.2.1 Evolution of the fleet
The purse seine fishery started in the early 1980s, initially with a small number of vessels from Japan
and the former Soviet Union. It really took off with the introduction of the European fleet of Spanish and
French vessels. During the 1990s, some Japanese purse seiners were operating in the WIO, but they
left after a few years to fish in the eastern Indian Ocean, unloading in Phuket.
The fleet expanded particularly rapidly following the introduction of drifting FADs in the early 1990s,
predominantly by the Spanish operators, as discussed in more detail in section 4.2.2 below.
Page 34
Table 4.3: breakdown of the number of purse seine vessels fishing in the WIO, recent years and
at 2000 and 2005
Country / country grouping 2000 2005 2009 2010 2012
EU 32 36 31 21 24
France 15 16 16 8 10
Spain 17 20 15 13 14
France territories 5
Seychelles 6 11 9 9 7
Iran 3 8 8 8 7
Japan 2 1 2 1 1
Other flags 32 12 8 9 3
Grand total 75 68 58 48 44
Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database
Note: The vessels in the France territories (Mayotte) will become EU vessels on 1 January 2014
The significant decline in Spanish and French purse seine vessels, primarily due to the piracy problem
in the WIO (see section 4.10) can be seen in the table above. With respect to future fleet evolution, it is
possible that around five French and five Spanish purse seine vessels that left the WIO to fish
elsewhere could return if improvements in the piracy situation are maintained. It is also reported that
there are four new vessels in the process of being built by French vessel owners; these vessels will
replace older vessels and vessels that are no longer in service. One French-flagged vessel beneficially
owned in Italy may be flagged in Italy in the future60. Two new vessels are also being built in Spain at
the time of writing, and are expected to fish in the WIO once completed, in addition to the existing
vessels operating in the region61. The possible/likely increase in French and Spanish vessels in the
future is not in contravention with IOTC resolutions on fleet capacity given previous vessel numbers,
provided that the total tonnage does not exceed that of the reference years 2006 (for tropical tunas)
and 2007 (for albacore and swordfish).
Also of relevance with respect to the evolution of the EU fleet, is the change of status of Mayotte from 1
January 2014, meaning that the current fleet of five vessels flagged in Mayotte will become EU vessels.
4.2.2 Evolution of effort
Figure 4.2 below summarises the historic levels of purse seine effort by the major countries in WIO
waters, and shows the decline in total effort over 2006 to 2010 due to piracy (see section 4.10). Fishing
effort is measured by IOTC in searching hours; time spent in sets or drifting is deducted. The biggest
boost to the purse-seine fishery came with the introduction of the fishery on floating objects, initially of
natural origin, then increasingly man made (FADs).
60 ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 9 October 2013.

61 OPAGAC, pers. comm., 7 October 2013.
Page 35
Figure 4.2: trends in effort (searching hours) for purse seine fleets in the WIO, 1980-2011
Source: IOTC, Catch-and-effort database
Note: ESP = Spain; FRA = France (including overseas territories); JPN = Japan; KOR = Korea; MUS = Mauritius;
NEI = not-elsewhere-identified; SYC = Seychelles
The increase in the use of FADs over time in the WIO means that reported fishing effort must be
interpreted with care. The traditional measure of effort continues to be days at sea, days fishing or
searching hours (as shown above), and that it is an adequate measure when most of the time fishing is
spent searching for schools. During the FAD-fishing season, however, as FADs act as ‘traps’ for the
fish, the efficiency of the vessels in catching fish relates more to the number of FADs deployed and the
accuracy in estimating the quantity of fish under a particular FAD, than the searching time for schools.
Fishing under floating objects, either natural logs or man-made FADs, takes advantage of the tendency
of the fish to aggregate under such objects at times, and increases the efficiency of the fleet relative to
the pursuit of free-swimming schools, as the proportion of successful sets is higher for the fishery on
objects. The use of auxiliary or ‘supply’ vessels (in particular by the Spanish fleet) enhances this
method by locating FADs with the highest expected catch, and this could be the reason for the large
increase in the frequency of very large sets seen in the late 2000s.
Over the years frequent technological developments have resulted in increases in efficiency of effort.
This is particularly true of technology associated with FADs. Recent FADs are equipped with satellite
transmitters and echo-sounders that allow skippers to estimate of the quantity of fish under the FAD.
For free-swimming schools, improvements in electronic detection equipment (for example, side-scan
sonar) have led to better rates of detection of the schools that show no surface activity.
Page 36
4.2.3 Purse seine catches by species

Purse seine catch is dominated by two species, as shown in the table below, with skipjack and yellowfin
tuna representing 49 % and 42 % of total purse seine catches respectively in 2011. Bigeye tuna is the
next most important species, representing 8 % of catches.
Table 4.4: purse seine catch (tonnes), by tropical tuna species, in WIO, 2011
Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Albacore Total Percent
EU 84 762 73 264 14 441 359 172 824 66.0 %
Spain 67 184 52 241 10 686 121 130 231 49.0 %
France 17 578 21 023 3 755 238 42 593 16.0 %
Seychelles 32 953 25 165 4 996 29 63 143 23.8 %
France – outer
territories 10 828 13 170 2 039 338 26 375 9.9 %
Iran, Islamic Republic 1 336 876 105 2 317 0.9 %
Japan 533 88 259 880 0.3 %
India 1 41 42 0.0 %
Grand total 130 413 112 604 21 840 725 265 581 100%
49 % 42 % 8% 0.3 % 100 %
4.2.4 FAD and free school set dependencies
The average catches for the period 2007-2011 of the three main species caught in the purse seine
fishery by the main three fleets are shown in Table 4.5, classified according to the set type. Currently,
the data are not reported to IOTC with details about the sets on floating objects that would allow a
separation between natural objects and man-made FADs. Virtually all FADs are drifting FADs. There
have been some feasibility studies to set up anchored FADs in some of the WIO islands, but the only
anchored FADs in operation remain those in Maldives, for the use of its domestic pole and line fishery.
Overall, there is a large dependency on the schools associated with floating objects, especially by fleets
from Spain and Seychelles (for these vessels around 80 % of the catch comes from sets associated
with floating objects). This is not surprising as the Seychelles-flagged vessels are operated by Spanish
crew, and behave like the Spanish fleet. The French fleet has a lower, but significant, dependency on
floating objects (65 % of the catch).
Fishing in association with floating objects is clearly the preferred way to catch skipjack tuna, as for the
three main fleets around 90 % of the catch of skipjack comes from that set type. There are significant
catches of yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna under floating objects, and the fish of these species caught
under floating objects are primarily juveniles. Since 2010, a one-month time-area closure has been
applied to the purse-seine fleet in an area between 60º east and the coast of Somalia, to reduce fishing
pressure in general, but in particular on juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna.
The proportion of catch coming from floating objects fluctuates from year to year dependent on
environmental conditions. In 2003-2006, due to the unusually large availability of free-swimming
schools of large yellowfin tuna, the proportion of yellowfin in the catch exceeded 50 %, with the catch
reaching record quantities.
In terms of spatial distribution, most of the catches on floating objects come from the Somali basin
region, defined as the high seas waters off the Somali coast, peaking in July-November.
Page 37
Table 4.5: catch in tonnes by species and set type (average 2007-2011) for the three main purse
seine fleets in the WIO
Species/Set type Spain France Seychelles
Yellowfin tuna
Free-swimming 17 071 19 433 8 324
Floating objects 25 887 14 876 13 393
Percent from floating 60 % 43 % 62 %
Skipjack tuna
Free-swimming 6 105 4 056 2 706
Bigeye tuna
Free-swimming 2 574 2 161 1 209
Total catch 121 720 73 399 62 600
Source: IOTC, Catch-and-Effort Database
Note: France catches includes vessels from its Overseas Territories
4.3 The longline fishery

The longline fishery was the first distant-water fishery to develop in the Indian Ocean, and in the early
1950s vessels from Japan rapidly expanded their activities to cover the whole of the Indian Ocean. The
Japanese operations were followed in 1967 by the introduction of the Taiwanese fleet and quickly
followed by the Korean fleet. During the early 1970s the Korean fleet was catching important quantities
of bigeye tuna.
In the late 1970s Taiwanese vessels, shortly followed by Japanese vessels, developed a deep longline
operation to target bigeye tuna, by increasing the number of hooks between floats, and switching the
setting of the line to the deeper waters that are the preferred habitat of bigeye tuna.
In the early 1990s, the introduction of monofilament line represented another evolution in the fishery
with lighter, stronger lines. The Taiwanese fleet combined this with different practices (such as setting
at night-time) to increase its targeting on swordfish, especially in the southwest Indian Ocean.
The 1990s saw the development of a large fleet of smaller longliners (usually referred to as fresh-
tuna longliners), built with wooden or fibreglass hulls, around 25 m in length and operating mainly
from Indonesian ports, initially only seasonally in the Indian Ocean and then all year long. In
contrast to the deep-freezing large-scale tuna longliners (Table 4.6) that can stay at sea for up to six
months, the fresh-tuna longline fleet does not have the same deep-freezing capabilities and
operates for around a month. By the mid-2000s a number of these vessels had left the EIO, moving
west to the WIO as catch rates fell in the EIO. As they moved they shifted targeting from bigeye
tuna to a more varied catch, including albacore and possibly sharks.
The Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean began it s activity in
September 1993, with five vessels conducting some exploratory fishing in the SWIO. Commercial
operations started in 1995 and continued with a small number of vessels until early 2000s (19 in
Page 38
2003, 24 in 2004). The fleet continued to expand its operations towards the east in the following
years, following concerns over declining catch rates in the SWIO, and later over piracy.
Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 show recent estimates by IOTC of the number of longliners operating in
different types of fisheries. For some countries (for example, Japan) these numbers will be
considerably lower than the vessels that Japan identifies as authorised to fish in the Indian Ocean. It
should be noted that the database does not allow identification of the area of operation, and that
large-scale vessels in particular might change areas of operation depending on the catch rates or
other factors (for example, the threat of piracy). Therefore, it is not possible to identify the exact
area of operation of the vessels, for example in the WIO as opposed to the EIO. The fleets known to
be primarily targeting swordfish, listed separately in Table 4.6, have operated primarily in the WIO,
although the most recent areas being exploited also extend into the EIO. However, other fleets,
such as the Taiwanese fleet, may also be targeting swordfish. In the absence of access to logbook
information, it is not possible to identify how many boats are operating in the WIO.
Similarly, the smaller, fresh-tuna longline fleet identified in Table 4.7 contains vessels that might be
operating in both the EIO and the WIO, in particular, those flagged in Indonesia. The fact that none
of these fleets reports catch-and-effort data makes it very difficult to determine levels of effort in
each side of the Indian Ocean.
Page 39
Table 4.6: breakdown of the number of large-scale, deep-freezing longline vessels fishing in the
Indian Ocean, recent years
Fleets 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012
Taiwan 272 289 300 341 154 138
Japan 197 219 191 184 85 98
NEI 58 81 65 39 9 18
Korea 77 52 38 28 13 7
Belize 92 4 1 8
China 8 41 15 32
Seychelles 6 26 26 28
Indonesia 15 30 36
India 1 6 3 24 29 2
Philippines 17 25 7 14
Oman 3 14 11 9
Others 3 7 26 11 8 2
EU 1 13 29 21 25
Spain* 1 6 12 13 19
Portugal* 7 15 4 3
UK* 2 4 3
South Africa* 3 2 15 10
NEI* 12 6
Tanzania* 3 2 8
Mauritius* 3 3 2 1
Madagascar* 2 3 4
Guinea* 3 3
Kenya* 1 1
Senegal* 1
France – outer 1
territories *
Grand total 608 653 768 809 441 440
Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database, 2013
Notes: In 2013 Spain reported 20 longline vessels. Fleets marked * have been identified as targeting swordfish,
when reported to the IOTC Record of Active Vessels, and they are likely to operate primarily in the WIO. Other
fleets contain vessels that can operate in the WIO and the EIO. The number of vessels actually operating in each
area of the Indian Ocean cannot be identified with the data available
Page 40
Table 4.7: breakdown of the number of smaller-scale, fresh-tuna longline vessels fishing in the
Indian Ocean, recent years
Fleets 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012
Indonesia 132 396 1 247 1 373 965 1 242
Taiwan 615 508 227 311 387 232
EU – France Réunion 13 25 33 29 28
China 12 90 26 5 4
Sri Lanka 36 82
Oman 2 11 41 31
Malaysia 18 38 5
India 19 24 18
Seychelles 4 4 1
Belize 5 8 6 12
Others 3 3 0 3 4 8
Grand total 750 942 1 596 1 806 1 539 1 653
Source: IOTC, Fishing Craft Statistics Database, 2013
Note: There is no information available to identify the number of vessels operating in the EIO or the WIO
Mozambique has recently placed an order for new vessels with a French shipyard. The order comprises
six patrol vessels and 24 fishing vessels. Although initial reports indicate that the order is for 24 trawlers
(chalutiers), the vessels will be fitted as longliners with the first vessels arriving in January62. The
vessels are based on a coastal trawler design of the shipyard (CNM 23.5), they are 23.5 m long overall
with a crew of eight, and an autonomy of 10 days. This reduced autonomy means that the vessels may
have to operate from foreign ports during part of the year, which if confirmed, will limit their profitability.
The funds for the construction of the vessels will originate from a USD 500 million (EUR 371 million)
bond guaranteed by the Mozambican government by the newly created fisheries company Ematum that
includes public and private interests.
There are also 100 vessels under construction for Comoros, financed by Qatari interests, and being
built in Sri Lanka. Few details have emerged about the nature of the vessels involved, but they are
likely to be similar to the wooden-hulled multi-day vessels from Sri Lanka and operating longline gear.
Seychelles also has about 20 new longliners under construction in Taiwan. These are assumed to be
small-scale vessels.
In all cases, the new additions are within the Fleet Development Plans presented by the countries
involved to IOTC.
The evolution of fishing effort reported for the WIO shows the dominance of the fleet from Taiwan
since the mid 1980s, see Figure 4.3. The total amount of effort also fluctuates between years to the
extent that suggests movement of the fleet between oceans. For example, the peak in 1993 in
Taiwanese effort is associated with very high catches over a short period in the northern Arabian
Sea, possibly attracting vessels from other oceans as well. On the contrary, the decline in overall
effort since the beginning of 2000s can be traced to a combination of factors, including declines in
catch rates and piracy threat in recent years. There is no data on the small fresh-tuna longline from
Taiwan, as this fishery does report catch-and-effort data and, therefore, it is not possible to identify
62 Ministerio das Pescas, pers. comm., 27 October 2013
Page 41
areas of operation, and the exact amount of effort from the small vessels in the WIO.
Another element to consider is that longline vessels change target species if catch rates are better,
or in response to external factors such as piracy, changing areas of operation. This has to be kept in
mind in particular when evaluating the effectiveness of the limitation of fishing capacity measures in
IOTC. Although countries are supposed to limit the tonnage of vessels targeting tropical tunas or
swordfish and albacore, vessels can (and do) actually change targeting very easily, limiting the
effectiveness of any capacity limitations.
Figure 4.3: fishing effort, in million of hooks, for selected longline fleets operating in the Indian
Ocean
Source: Estimated on the basis of IOTC, Catch-and-effort Database
Note: CHN = People’s Republic of China; ESP = Spain; JPN = Japan; KOR = Republic of Korea; SYC =
Seychelles; TWN = Taiwan/China
A number of coastal States have initiated the development of their fleets and, in most cases, these
are longline fleets, while for traditional fleets total effort has declined in recent years. This could be
due to the threat of piracy, and this needs to be resolved before it will be possible to predict long-
term trends in the evolution of the fleet. Nevertheless, the trend does seem to be towards the
‘domestication’ of the longline fleet, with more coastal State participation, in many cases based on
small-scale longliners. It remains to be seen how many of these fleets will be able to operate at a
profit.
4.3.3 Longline catches, by species
Catches of different species by the longline fleet are concentrated on albacore, bigeye and yellowfin
tuna and swordfish. However, different fleets display marked differences in catch composition.
The main fleets of Taiwan/China and Seychelles (the latter beneficially owned by Taiwanese interests)
continue to target bigeye tuna, in spite of not having access to the main bigeye fishing grounds in the
Page 42
tropical region because of the piracy threat. In 2012, Taiwanese longliners, following a decline in the
frequency of attacks and after incorporating on-board security personnel, are returning to the traditional
fishing grounds63. As these are primarily tropical areas with a much higher abundance of bigeye tuna,
this return to traditional areas should result in an increase in the catches of bigeye tuna and a possible
decrease of the catch of albacore tuna, which are not present in the tropical fishing grounds.
The Japanese fleet has continued to target yellowfin tuna on the fishing grounds in the northern
Mozambique Channel, while the Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet has been targeting swordfish and
sharks64. Omani-flagged vessels, operating in the northern Arabian Sea, are also targeting yellowfin
tuna.
A number of other fleets target albacore, in particular the smaller longliners as evident from the catches
of the NEI-fresh tuna component of the fleet (see Table 4.8).
63Although as noted in the Kenya ex ante evaluation report (Poseidon et al., 2014), no foreign longline vessels are
authorised to fish in the Kenyan EEZ, although may now be doing so.
64 ORPAGU and Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin , pers. comm., 8 October 2013.
Page 43
Table 4.8: longline catches in 2011 in the WIO, in tonnes

Country Albacore Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Total
Taiwan/China 6 813 10 444 4 986 1 522 23 765
Japan 1 374 792 4 364 315 6 846
Seychelles 145 3 832 1 230 503 5 710
Oman 4 771 1 4 772
EU 470 590 398 4 997 6 475
Spain 45 188 91 3 064 3 388
Portugal 8 79 14 694 795
United Kingdom 1 3 7 228 239
France (Réunion) 416 320 286 1 031 2 053
India 113 1 409 1 269 381 3 172
NEI – fresh tuna 2 300 86 679 44 3 109
NEI – deep-freezing 217 998 291 119 1 625
China 925 174 183 138 1 421
Tanzania 312 44 71 880 1 308
South Africa 39 219 188 400 846
Thailand 263 170 94 81 608
Korea, Republic of 341 155 77 16 589
Madagascar 61 67 61 87 276
Mozambique 31 4 6 216 258
Belize 148 9 11 2 169
Mauritius 16 14 23 60 113
Total 13 569 19 007 18 702 9 782 61 060
% by species 22.2 % 31.1 % 30 6% 16.0 %
Notes: NEI = Not-elsewhere-identified, indicates catches that cannot be assigned to a particular flag; data are not
provided for catches of sharks, which are a targeted fishery by some fleets
4.4 The pole and line fishery

The pole-and-line fishery is the most traditional of all fisheries in the Indian Ocean, originating in the
12th century. The main fishing country is Maldives, although there is also a fishing fleet in western
India, in Lakshadweep, which operates in a similar way to the Maldivian fishery, although it is not well
documented. These are the only commercially viable pole-and-line fisheries in the western Indian
Ocean, due to the lack of bait resources in most of the Indian Ocean. In the early 1980s, two Spanish
vessels conducted trials, but they were not commercially successful.
The fishery in Maldives has been evolving continuously, in particular in recent years. In the period
1975-1985 most of the vessels were mechanised (Figure 4.4) and the evolution has continued to larger
and better-equipped vessels. Currently, many of the vessels are above 24 metres in length, and carry
have electronic equipment, for example bird radars to detect birds associated with tuna schools.
Traditionally, the vessels made one-day trips. The increase in size and on-board facilities have allowed
vessels to stay at the fishing grounds for several days, although day trips remain the norm for cultural
reasons. The pole-and-line fleet in the Maldives, despite technological developments, remains an
Page 44
artisanal one however, with close to 1 000 vessels65. Vessels also work with collector vessels that
receive fish at several points in the atolls and facilitate transport to processing plants.
Figure 4.4: trends in the number of mechanised and non-mechanised pole-and-line vessels
operating in the Maldivian fishery

Fishing effort in the Maldives has declined dramatically in recent years, in part due to difficulties in
obtaining crew given economic development in the country. However, the primary reason is the shift in
fishing effort by many fishing vessels from pole-and-line fishing to handline fishing for higher value
yellowfin tuna (see section 4.6).
65 Typically wooden or fibreglass vessels.
Page 45
Figure 4.5: trends in the effort of pole-and-line vessels operating in the Maldivian and Indian
fisheries
Source: IOTC, Catch-and-Effort Database
Note: IND = India (no effort reported after 1990); MDV = Maldives (no effort officially reported to IOTC between
1993 and 2004)
4.4.3 Pole-and-line catches, by species

Although it has been traditionally a skipjack fishery, in recent years the increasing demand for yellowfin
tuna has caused a shift in the effort of the Maldivian dhonis towards handline operations targeting
yellowfin (see section 4.6). As a result, the proportion of yellowfin in the total catch of Maldives has
grown from 14 % in 2005 to 46 % in 2012. However, skipjack is still a very important part of the catch
composition for the pole-and-line fleet as shown below.
Table 4.9: pole-and-line catch of key species, by flag, in tonnes (2011)
Country Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye Total
India 8 302 2 911 n/a 11 213
Maldives 52 489 9 016 634 62 139
Total 60 791 11 927 634 73 352
% species 82.9 % 16.3 % 0.9 %
Maldivian data sources suggest that in 2012 the Maldivian pole-and-line fleet produced 71 411 tonnes
of tuna (51 134 t of skipjack, 10 896 t of yellowfin) 7 873 tonnes of ‘other fish’, and small quantities of
dogtooth, little and frigate tuna66.
In addition, to catches made by pole and line in India, it should be noted that a small pole-and-line
fishery exists in South Africa (based primarily out of Hout Bay, near Cape Town) with catches of around
3 000 t per year of albacore and around 500-1 000 t of yellowfin. The tuna pole-and-line fishery in
South Africa targets schooling juvenile albacore in the southeast Atlantic (rather than the WIO).
66 Fisheries Management Agency, 2013
Page 46
However, yellowfin catches in the warmer waters of the WIO off the east of South Africa have been
increasingly targeted in recent years with rod and reel67.
4.5 The gillnet fishery

Gillnet fisheries have been traditional in the northern Arabian Sea, with catches predominantly of
yellowfin tuna, utilising traditional wooden-hull vessels (known in the region as dhows). The particular
environmental conditions of the northern Arabian Sea bring large yellowfin tuna close to the surface
and fishermen from Pakistan, India, Oman, and especially Iran have taken advantage of this seasonal
fishery. Trips were historically necessarily short in this fishery as the vessels were not carrying ice.
In the early 2000s, Iranian vessels began to be retrofitted with ice-making equipment and began
making longer trips, expanding their range of operations to the Somali region and beyond. In 2010,
Iranian vessels were detained for fishing illegally as far away as Seychelles and Mozambique. The fleet
is based in southern Iranian ports, mainly Chabahar, but there is frequent exchange of vessels with the
Pakistani fleet based in Baluchistan. In fact, many Iranian vessels have Pakistani crew and dual
registration in Iran and Pakistan. The continued expansion of this fleet was hampered by the increase
in pirate activities, as gillnet vessels became a frequent target of piracy and victims of frequent
hijackings.
The Sri Lanka fleet, based in the EIO, is different in that its fishing operations have combined both
gillnet and longline gears for many years, although more recently many operations have turned into
longline-based operations. However, there is no documentation of the specific timeline of that evolution,
and apparently they have ceased operations in the WIO with gillnet gear.
Figure 4.6 below shows the evolution of vessel numbers, by country, over the last 30 years. All Iranian
and Pakistani vessels can be assumed to be fishing in the WIO, while Sri Lankan vessels fish
predominantly in the EIO, but also sometimes in the WIO (the spatial distribution of the fleets is not well
understood as these fleets do not report catch-and-effort information that is spatially disaggregated.
67 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013.
Page 47
Figure 4.6: evolution of the gillnet fisheries of Iran and Pakistan, and the gillnet/longline fishery
of Sri Lanka
Note: Information about the number of gillnetters from India is not available
4.5.2 Catches, by species

As indicated in the previous section, the evolution of catch by species has been marked by the changes
in the range of operations of the fleet. Recent catches indicate a predominance of yellowfin tuna in the
catch, especially for the Iran-Pakistan fleet. In the absence of information on the spatial distribution of
the fleets (as noted above, none of these fleets have reported catch-and-effort information spatially
disaggregated), this is assumed to be a result of the piracy operations pushing the gillnet fleet back
towards the northern Arabia Sea.
It is necessary to look at the history of the catch by species to see the effects of the movement of the
Iranian fleet (taken as a representative example) on the species composition of the catch (Figure 4.7).
Following the southern expansion of the fleets, the percentage of skipjack increased to reach a record
value in 2006, only to decline rapidly in the subsequent years.
Page 48
Table 4.10: gillnet catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011)
Country Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Skipjack Total
Iran, Islamic Republic 420 27 227 258 16 137 44 042
Pakistan 7 350 552 5 350 13 252
India 1 427 73 181 1 681
Oman 1 400 22 1 422
Tanzania 1 243 121 1 364
Kenya 76 37 113
Comoros 8 69 4 81
Djibouti 70 7 78
Jordan 7 25 32
Total 428 38 870 883 21 884 62 065
% species 1% 63 % 1% 35 %
Figure 4.7: trends in the catch, by species, caught by the Iranian fishery
4.6 The handline fishery

Handline fisheries are predominantly artisanal and, therefore, are not well documented, with an uneven
level of reporting. However, there are isolated fisheries that are known to contribute important catches
of some of the key target species.
Yemen has a large fleet of over 2 000 small mechanised boats, organised in cooperatives, that fish
seasonally from various landing sites along the coast. In years where environmental conditions are
Page 49
favourable, yellowfin is available along the coast very close to shore and become an important target
for this artisanal fleet. IOTC has estimated catches of 25 000-30 000 tonnes annually for 2000-2005.
Another important fishery is the Maldivian handline fishery, operating on the basis of the same dhoni
vessels that are the basis for the pole-and-line fishery, in response to the better prices for handline-
caught yellowfin and the expansion of processing operations for export. It is estimated that there are
now around 300 dhonis in Maldives, targeting yellowfin using handline operations.
4.6.2 Catches, by species

Handline fisheries are not well documented historically and it is therefore difficult to fully understand
trends in catches by species. Apart from the cases of Maldives and Yemen discussed previously, there
is great uncertainty about catches by India and it is possible that the figures listed in the Table 4.11
represent only a fraction of the actual catches.
In Comoros, a traditional fishery has benefitted from the proximity of deep waters due to the narrow
continental shelf, making it easier for the artisanal fishery to access pelagic resources.
Table 4.11: handline catch of key species, by flag and EEZ, in tonnes (2011)
Country Albacore Bigeye Yellowfin Swordfish Skipjack Total
Maldives 25 925 5 183 31 108
Yemen 25 126 51 25 176
India 217 8 538 6 603 15 357
Comoros 28 190 1 617 228 2 716 4 779
Madagascar 27 675 834 1 536
France OT 308 477 785
Oman 548 548
Mauritius 158 2 165 2 22 349
Iran, Islamic Republic 277 277
EU-France(Reunion) 9 64 73
South Africa 46 5 51
Kenya 25 12 37
Tanzania 29 29
Total 240 435 63 304 229 15 898 80 107
% by species 0.3 % 0.5 % 79.0 % 0.3 % 19.8 %
Page 50
4.7 Status of target and bycatch fish stocks caught by tuna fisheries
4.7.1 Target species status
Table 4.12: summary table of catches, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and stock status for key
target species
Species Recent MSY in Summary
average tonnes
catch
Albacore 41 600 Stock status is not overfished (5 % above optimum) but subject
Thunnus alalunga (2007- 33 300 to overfishing (33 % above MSY level) and close to limit
2011) reference point. Affected by the displacement caused by piracy
Bigeye tuna 107 600 Not overfished (44 % above optimum) and not subject to
Thunnus obesus (2008- 132 000 overfishing (58 % below target level). The tropical longline fishery
2012) was displaced by piracy but was returning by 2012
Skipjack tuna Not overfished (20 % above optimum) and not subject to
Katsuwonus 400 980 478 000 overfishing (20 % below target level). Recent catch declines due
(2008-2012)
pelamis to less fishing effort and lower catch rates
Yellowfin tuna Not overfished (24 % above optimum) and not subject to
Thunnus 317 505 overfishing (30 % below target level). Reductions in fishing effort,
344 000
albacares (2008-2012) especially in longline effort, might reverse if the piracy threat
continues to decline.
Swordfish Not overfished (7-60 % above optimum) and not subject to
(whole IO) 21 900 29 900 overfishing (50-63 % of target level).
Xiphias gladius (2007-2011)
Source: Consultants’ compilation based on the status summary in the report of the 15th IOTC Scientific
Committee (IOTC, 2012) and the report of the Working Party in Tropical Tunas, 2013
Notes: Maximum sustainable yield is the largest average yield (catch) that can theoretically be taken from a
species’ stock over an indefinite period under constant environmental conditions. Overfishing is defined as
occurring when the fishing intensity is higher than the one that produces MSY, while a stock is defined as being
overfished when its total biomass is less that the biomass that produces MSY. Therefore catches/yield may be
above MSY and still not being overfished if the biomass is sufficiently larger that the optimum biomass
The status of the main stocks exploited in the WIO (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) is monitored by the
Scientific Committee and Working Parties of the IOTC. The following text summarises the latest scientific
advice produced, as presented in the table above (Table 4.12). Additional information on the biology of
species, and the detailed Kobe plots68 are provided in Annex K.
4.7.2 Skipjack tuna
There is only a low risk of exceeding MSY-based provisional target and limit reference points by 2020 if
catches are maintained at the current levels, and even if catches are maintained below the 2005-2010
average (500 000 t). Given the current MSY estimate and recent average catch, the stock appears to be
in no immediate threat of breaching target and limit reference points. The recent declines in catches are
thought to be caused by a recent decrease in purse seine effort as well as due to a decline in catch rate of
large skipjack tuna in the surface fisheries. Recent declines of pole-and-line catch and catch rates may be
due to the combined effects of the fishery and environmental factors affecting recruitment or catchability.
Therefore, this stock situation should be closely monitored.
68 Kobe plots are a specific type of graph, designed to facilitate the perception of the status of the stock and the fishing
intensity that the stock is being subject to, relative to target and reference points. More details are provided in Annex K.
Page 51
4.7.3 Yellowfin tuna

The results from stock assessment suggests that the stock is currently not overfished, although it is
possible that the target reference points may have been exceeded during the period of high catches in
the mid 2000s (2003-2006).
The decrease in longline and purse seine effort in recent years has substantially lowered the pressure
on the Indian Ocean stock as a whole, indicating that current fishing mortality has not exceeded the
MSY-related levels in recent years. If the piracy situation in the western Indian Ocean were to continue
to improve, a rapid reversal in fleet activity in this region may lead to an increase in effort, which the
stock might not be able to sustain, as catches would then be likely to exceed MSY levels. Catches in
2010 (299 000 t) are within the lower range of MSY values. The current assessment indicates that
catches at about the 2010 level are sustainable, at least in the short term. However, the stock is
unlikely to support substantively higher yields based on the estimated levels of recruitment over the last
15 years.
4.7.4 Bigeye tuna
The recent declines in longline effort, particularly from the Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese and Republic
of Korea longline fleets, as well as purse seine effort, have lowered the pressure on the Indian Ocean
bigeye tuna stock, indicating that current fishing mortality would not reduce the population to an
overfished state in the near future. In 2012 catches increased markedly (24 % over 2011 values),
marking the return to the traditional fishing grounds. Projections from the 2011 assessment suggest
there is a relatively low risk of exceeding MSY-based reference points by 2020 both when considering
current catches or even if catches increased to around 100 000 t. If the recent declines in effort
continue, and catch remains substantially below the estimated MSY of 132 000 t, immediate
management measures are not required. However, continued monitoring and improvement in data
collection, reporting and analysis is required to reduce the uncertainty in assessments.
4.7.5 Albacore tuna
Trends in the catch rates of Taiwan/China suggest that the longline vulnerable biomass has declined to
about 29 % of the level observed in 1950. There were 20 years of moderate fishing before 1980, and
the catch has more than doubled since 1980. Catches have increased substantially since 2007. This is
attributed to the Indonesian fishery although there is substantial uncertainty remaining on the catch
estimates. It is considered that recent catches have been well above the MSY level, and recent fishing
mortality is 33 % above the optimum level, and approaching the interim limit reference point. Spawning
biomass is considered to be at or very near to the optimum level. The IOTC Scientific Committee has
recommended that the fishing mortality needs to be reduced by at least 20 % to ensure that spawning
biomass is maintained at MSY levels. Maintaining or increasing effort in the core albacore fishing
grounds is likely to result in further declines in albacore biomass, productivity and catch rates.
4.7.6 Swordfish
All analyses suggest that the stock is above, but close to a biomass level that would produce MSY and
current catches are below the MSY level. MSY-based reference points are not exceeded for the Indian
Ocean population as a whole. The decrease in longline catch and effort in recent years has lowered the
pressure on the Indian Ocean stock as a whole, indicating that current fishing mortality would not
reduce the population to an overfished state. There is a low risk of exceeding MSY-based reference
points by 2019 if catches reduce further or are maintained at current levels until 2019.
4.7.7 Status of bycatch species
With the possible exception of pole-and-line fisheries, all major tuna-directed fisheries have some form
of non-target bycatch (for example excluding the tuna and other target species discussed above).
Some of this bycatch may be retained whilst much of it is discarded. In this section we briefly describe
Page 52
the bycatch characteristics of the main tuna fisheries and then evaluate the status of the key bycatch
species involved. It should also be noted that for the purpose of this text we categorise shark as a
‘bycatch’ species, as they are for most fleets. However, it is known that some selected fleets actually
switch between targeting swordfish and shark at different times of the year, and for such fleets sharks
are a target species69.
Table 4.13: key bycatch fish species from the main WIO tuna and tuna-like fisheries
Catch rate estimates (and
Gear type Key bycatch species Information source(s)
fate)
Blue shark; swordfish; Huang and Liu (2010), from 77
Longline sailfish, pomfret and 14.90 % observer trips in Taiwanese
escolar fleet in 2004-2008
Bach et al. (2012), from
Sharks (primarily blue 17-29 % (6.7 % for blue observer and self-report, for
shark) shark) period 2009-2011, Réunion
Island fleet
Mejuto et al. (2006), Spanish
fleet
Purse seine Sharks 0.15 %(FSC); 0.54 % (FAD) Amande et al. (2012), for
period 2003-2009, from
Bony fish 0.36 %(FSC); 2.06 % (FAD) observer data
0.07 % (FSC); 0.12 %
Billfish
(FAD)
Rays 0.04 %(FSC); 0.02 % (FAD)
< 0.01 %(FSC);
Turtles
< 0.01 %(FAD)]
Discards of target 1.08 % (FSC); 6.58 %
species (FAD)
Gillnet Sharks 3.20 % Shahifar (2011), from logbook

data from Iranian fleet,
Sailfish 3.70 % probably underestimated
Dolphinfish 2.40 %
Other 2.10 %
Discards of target
1.40 %
species (tuna)
Source: Consultants’ compilation based on information sources provided in the table
Notes: FSC = free school, FAD = fish aggregating device
A brief description of the status of these species is provided below, with information about species
biology provided in Annex K. It should be noted that there is still insufficient data provided to develop
any precise assessment of the status of most of the species. Catch reporting by species is partial and
the catches for several of the species are underestimated by a large margin. In certain fisheries,
species are reported aggregated or probably not reported. This is particularly so for bycatch species
that are caught in artisanal fisheries.
69 Spanish administration and longline vessel associations, pers. comm., 7-9 October 2013.
Page 53
4.7.7.1 Sharks
There is little information on the fisheries prior to the early 1970s. Some countries continue not to
collect shark data while others do collect data but do not report data to IOTC. It appears that substantial
catches of sharks have gone unrecorded in several countries. Furthermore, many catch records
probably under-represent the actual catches of sharks because they do not account for discards (i.e. do
not record catches of sharks from which only the fins are kept, or of sharks usually discarded because
of their size or condition) or they reflect dressed weights instead of live weights. FAO also compiles
landings data on elasmobranchs, but the statistics are limited by the lack of species-specific data and
data from the major fleets.
The practice of shark finning is considered to be regularly occurring and on the increase for this species
by some fleets70. The bycatch/release injury rate is unknown, but is probably high.
Silky sharks
Silky sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries and are a
bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and the purse seine
fishery). Sri Lanka has had a large fishery for silky shark for more than 40 years.
Maldivian shark fishermen report significant declines in silky shark abundance over the past 20 years71.
In addition, Indian longline research surveys, in which silky sharks contributed 7 % of catch,
demonstrate declining catch rates over the period 1984-200672. No long-term data for purse seine catch
per unit effort (CPUE) are available. However, there is anecdotal evidence of a five-fold decrease of
silky shark catches per set between the 1980s and 2005.
4.7.7.2 Blue shark
Blue sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch of
industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and anecdotally in the purse seine
fishery). However, in recent years longliners have been targeting this species due to an increase in its
commercial value worldwide. The blue shark appears to have a similar distribution to swordfish.
Typically, the fisheries take blue sharks of between 180 and 240 cm fork length, or 30 kg to 52 kg.
Males are slightly smaller than females. In other oceans, angling clubs are known to organise shark-
fishing competitions where blue sharks and mako sharks are targeted. Sport fisheries for oceanic
sharks are apparently not as common in the Indian Ocean.
Preliminary estimations of at-haulback73 mortality showed that 24.7 % of the blue shark specimens
captured in longline fisheries targeting swordfish are captured dead at time of haulback. Specimen size
seems to be a significant factor, with larger specimens having a higher survival at-haulback74.
There are no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean. Trends in
localised areas might be possible in the future (for example, from the Kenyan recreational fishery).
Historical research data shows overall decline in CPUE while mean weight of blue shark in this time
series are relatively stable75.
70 Clarke et al. 2006; Clarke 2008.

71 Anderson, 2009.
72 John and Varghese, 2009.
73 At-haul mortality refers to the proportion of fish that are dead when they are first retrieved on board, meaning that they
cannot be returned live to sea.

74 Coelho et al., 2011.
75 Romanov, 2008.
Page 54
Trends in the Japanese CPUE series suggest that the longline vulnerable biomass was more or less
stable in 2000-2006 and subsequently increased to higher levels for the period 2007-1176. The
standardised CPUE of blue shark catches by the Portuguese longline fleet in the Indian Ocean shows
little variability between 1999 and 201177.
4.7.7.3 Oceanic whitetip shark
Oceanic whitetip sharks are targeted by some semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch
of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and purse seine fishery).
At-haulback mortality of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Atlantic ocean longline fishery targeting
swordfish was recently estimated to be 30.6 %78.
Historical research data shows overall decline in catch rates and mean weight of oceanic whitetip
shark79. Anecdotal reports suggest that oceanic white tips have become rare throughout much of the
Indian Ocean during the past 20 years. Indian longline research surveys reported zero catches from the
Arabia Sea in 2004-200980.
Trends in the Japanese standardised catch rate series (2003-2011) suggest that the biomass available
to the longline fishery has decreased81. Early catch rate data (2000-2002) were considered not reliable
due to data quality problems.
Trends in the Spanish standardised catch rate series (1998-2011) suggest that the longline vulnerable
biomass declined until 2007 and has been variable and without a discernible trend since82.
4.7.7.4 Scalloped hammerhead shark
Scalloped hammerhead sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational
fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and
purse seine fishery).
Detailed catch data are not available at the IOTC Secretariat. However, Indian longline research
surveys, in which scalloped hammerhead sharks contributed up to 6 % of regional catch, showed
declining catch rates in the period 1984-200683. The catch rate in South African protective nets shows a
steady decline from 1978.
4.7.7.5 Shortfin mako shark
Shortfin mako sharks are often targeted by some semi-industrial, artisanal and recreational fisheries
and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish fisheries and anecdotally
by the purse seine fishery). In other oceans, due to its energetic displays and edibility, the shortfin
mako shark is considered one of the great gamefish of the world.
Historical research data shows overall decline in catch rates and mean weight of mako sharks84. Catch
rates in South African protection nets are fluctuating without any trend85. The catch rates of shortfin
mako caught by the Portuguese longline fleet in the Indian Ocean showed some significant variability in
76 Hiraoka and Yokawa, 2012.

79 Romanov, 2008.
81 Yokawa and Semba, 2012.
82 Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012.
84 Romanov, 2008.
85 Holmes et al., 2009.
Page 55
the period 1999-2010, but no noticeable trends. The standardised series for the more recent years
(2006-2010) also showed no significant trends86. Japanese catch rate series suggests that the longline
vulnerable biomass largely fluctuated in the period1994-201087 and there are no apparent trends.
4.7.7.6 Bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks
Bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks are often targeted by some recreational, semi-industrial and
artisanal fisheries and are a bycatch of industrial fisheries (pelagic longline tuna and swordfish
fisheries). In Australia, thresher sharks used to be a target of sport fishermen, but sport fisheries for
oceanic sharks are apparently not as common in other Indian Ocean countries.
The post-release mortality is unknown but is probably high. In most cases discarded sharks are not
recorded in fisheries logbooks. There is a scarcity of data that could be used to assess trends in catch
rates. There are no surveys specifically designed to assess shark catch rates in the Indian Ocean.
Historical research data show overall decline both in CPUE and mean weight of thresher sharks88.
4.7.7.7 Marlins and sailfish89
Black marlin are caught mainly by drifting longlines (44 %) and gillnets (49 %) with remaining catches
taken by troll and hand lines. Black marlin are not targeted by industrial fisheries, but are targeted by
some artisanal and sport/recreational fisheries. In recent years, the fleets of Taiwan/China (longline),
Sri Lanka (gillnet), Indonesia (gillnet) and India (gillnet) are attributed with the highest catches of black
marlin. The minimum average annual catch estimated for the period 2007 to 2011 is 6 292 t, although
this figure is considered to be a gross underestimate due to under reporting and misidentification.
No quantitative stock assessment for black marlin in the Indian Ocean is known to exist. However, the
IOTC Working Party on Billfish has attempted a preliminary estimation of stock indicators based
longline catch and effort datasets from Japan and Taiwan/China, which represent the best available
information. Standardised catch rates have exhibited dramatic declines since the beginning of the
Japanese longline fishery and catches in the initial core areas have also decreased substantially.
However, there is considerable uncertainty about the degree to which these indicators, prior to 1958,
represent abundance, as factors such as changes in targeting practices, discarding practices, fishing
grounds and management practices are likely to interact in the depicted trend. Further work must be
undertaken to derive additional stock indicators for this species, because in the absence of a
quantitative stock assessment, such indicators represent the only means to monitor the status of the
stock and assess the impacts of fishing.
Blue marlin are caught mainly by drifting longlines (60 %) and gillnets (30 %) with remaining catches
recorded under troll and hand lines. Blue marlin is an important target for several artisanal and
sport/recreational fleets. Blue marlin are also known to be taken in purse seine fisheries, but are not
currently being reported. The reported catches of blue marlin are higher than those of black marlin and
striped marlin combined, although this is highly uncertain due to under reporting and misidentification.
In recent years, the fleets of Taiwan/China (longline), Indonesia (longline and gillnet), Sri Lanka (gillnet)
and India (gillnet) are attributed with the highest catches of blue marlin. The distribution of blue marlin
catches has changed since the 1980s with most of the reported catch now taken in the western areas
of the Indian Ocean. However, non-reporting of catches by gillnet fleets in the northern Indian Ocean
masks the true level of harvest in the Indian Ocean.

87 Kimoto et al., 2011.
88 IOTC, 2012.
89 Text below is primarily drawn from the collection of executive summaries published within the report of the IOTC Scientific
Committee.
Page 56
Currently, there is no quantitative stock assessment available for blue marlin in the Indian Ocean that is
considered developed enough for the provision of management advice. Due to a lack of reliable fishery
data and poor quality of available data for several gears, only very preliminary stock indicators can be
used. The standardised longline CPUE series suggest that there was a decline in the early 1980s,
followed by a constant or slightly increasing abundance over the last 20 years. This contrasts with the
majority of non-standardised indicators, which suggests a decline in abundance since the 1980s.
Therefore the stock status is determined as being uncertain. However, aspects of species biology,
productivity and fisheries, combined with the data on which to base a quantitative assessment, is a
cause for concern.
Striped marlin are caught almost exclusively by drifting longlines (98 %) with remaining catches
recorded by gillnets and troll lines. Catch trends for striped marlin are variable; however, this may
reflect the level of targeting by longline fleets. The catches of striped marlin by drifting longlines have
been changing over time, between 2 000 t and 7 000 t, although this is highly uncertain due to under
reporting and misidentification.
Taiwan/China and Japan have reported large drops in the catches of striped marlin for their longline
fleets since the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, respectively. The reason for such decreases in catches is
not fully understood. The distribution of reported striped marlin catches has changed since the 1980s,
with most of the catch now taken in the western areas of the Indian Ocean. However, non-reporting of
catches by the gillnet and troll line fisheries masks the true level of harvest in the Indian Ocean.
The standardised CPUE series suggests that there was a sharp decline in the early 1980s, followed by
slower decline from 1990. In analyses conducted at the IOTC Working Party on Billfish in September
2013, the results from three stock assessment models suggest that the stock has been subject to
overfishing for some years, and that as a result, the stock biomass is well below the BMSY level (the
biomass that produces MSY) and shows little signs of rebuilding despite the declining effort trend. Thus,
on the weight of evidence available, the stock has been assumed to be overfished and subject to
overfishing
Indo-Pacific sailfish are targeted by artisanal fisheries in the Maldives, Yemen and Sri Lanka and by
sport/recreational fisheries including in Kenya, Mauritius and Seychelles. Indo-Pacific sailfish is caught
mainly by gillnets (78 %) with remaining catches reported from troll and hand lines (15 %), longlines
(7 %) or other gears. The minimum average annual catch estimated for the period 2007 to 2011 is
27 103 t. However, this figure is highly uncertain due to under reporting and misidentification. In recent
years, the countries attributed with the highest catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish are situated in the
Arabian Sea (India, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka). Smaller catches are reported for line fishers in
Comoros and Mauritius, and by Indonesia longliners.
Catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish have greatly increased since the mid-1990s in response to the
development of a gillnet/longline fishery in Sri Lanka and, especially, the extension in the area of
operation of Iranian gillnet vessels to areas beyond the Iranian EEZ, as discussed earlier. The catches
of Iranian gillnets increased dramatically, more than six-fold, from the late 1990s.
Catches of Indo-Pacific sailfish by drifting longlines and other gears do not show any specific trends in
recent years. However, it is likely that longline fleets under report catches of this species due to its low
commercial value. In recent years, deep-freezing longliners from Japan have reported catches of Indo-
Pacific sailfish in the central western Indian Ocean, between Sri Lanka and the Maldives and the
Mozambique Channel.
Page 57
4.7.7.8 Marine turtles

Table 4.14 lists the six species of marine turtles that interact with tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean,
with their status according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (information on
catches of turtles is provided in section 4.8).
Table 4.14: turtles in the Indian Ocean and their status
Common name Scientific name IUCN threat status
Flatback turtle Natator depressus Data deficient

Green turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered
Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Critically endangered
Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Critically endangered
Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Endangered
Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Vulnerable
Sources: Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 1996; Red List Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 1996; Sarti
Martinez (Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2000; Seminoff, 2004; Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin, 2008; Mortimer and
Donnelly, 2008; IUCN, 2012
4.7.7.9 Seabirds
Seabirds are species that derive their sustenance primarily from the ocean and spend the bulk of their
time at sea (when not on land at breeding sites). Seventeen species of seabirds are known to interact
with longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. However, not all reports
identify birds to species level and, overall, information on seabird bycatch in the IOTC area remains
very limited90.
Seabirds are long-lived, typically with very low natural adult mortality. Seabirds are characterised as
being late to mature and slow to reproduce; some do not start to breed before they are ten years old.
Most lay a single egg each year, with some albatross species only breeding every second year. These
traits make any increase in human-induced adult mortality potentially damaging for population viability,
as even small increases in mortality can result in population decreases.
The southern Indian Ocean is of global importance in relation to albatross distribution: seven of the 18
species of southern hemisphere albatrosses have breeding colonies on Indian Ocean islands. In
addition, all but one of the 18 southern hemisphere albatrosses forage in the Indian Ocean at some
stage in their life cycle. The Indian Ocean is particularly important for Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea
amsterdamensis – critically endangered) and Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche carteri –
endangered), which are endemic to the southern Indian Ocean, white-capped albatross (Thalassarche
steadi – endemic to New Zealand), shy albatross (T. cauta – endemic to Tasmania, and which forage in
the area of overlap between IOTC and WCPFC), wandering albatross (D. exulans – 74 % global
breeding pairs), sooty albatross (Phoebetria fusca – 39 % global breeding pairs), light-mantled sooty
albatross (P. palpebrata – 32 % global breeding pairs), grey-headed albatross (T. chrysotoma – 20 %
global breeding pairs) and northern and southern giant-petrel (Macronectes halli and M. giganteus –
26 % and 30 % global breeding pairs, respectively).
90 Gauffier, 2007; IOTC, 2011.
Page 58
4.8 Ecosystem impacts of tuna fisheries

For all the tuna fisheries/fleets described in this report, there is little or no impact on sensitive bottom
habitats as they are all conducted in the upper part of the pelagic water column. The main ecosystem
issues with the purse seine, longline, gillnet, and pole-and-line fisheries are (i) their impacts on non-
target fish species, (ii) the bycatch of ETP species and (iii) their potential to disrupt the functioning of
marine ecosystems as a result of the removal of high trophic level species.
4.8.1 Purse seine fishery impacts
There is a clear difference in the impact of the two predominant fishing modes in the fishery. Free-
swimming schools tend to have a much lower percentage by-catch of non-target species. The main
bycatch of non-target species comprises an assortment of bony (non-shark) fish species, with low-value
species such as triggerfish comprising a significant percentage of the catch.
It has always been assumed that sharks are not a common by-catch species in purse-seine fisheries.
However, according to a recent study, there is significant mortality of sharks entangled in FADs
designed with long underwater hanging netting91. For the Indian Ocean, the incidental catch of silky
shark caused by entanglement is estimated to be between 480 000 and 900 000 fish per year. Some of
the sharks caught in purse seine operations have been classified as vulnerable by IUCN.
There are virtually no impacts on seabirds in purse-seine operations, and there is a very low observed
mortality of marine turtles on FAD sets, although there might be unobserved mortality due to
entanglement with the FAD material, similar that described for sharks. However, there is greater
concern about the diversity of the species incidentally caught in the FAD-log associated fishery, as this
includes some species that are considered threatened. European Union observers (covering on
average 5 % of the operations annually from 2003 to 2007) reported just 74 marine turtles caught by
French and Spanish purse seiners in the period 2003 to 200792. The most common species reported
were olive ridley, green and hawksbill turtles, and these were mostly caught on sets on floating objects
and returned to the sea alive (although there is no systematic information on survival after release).
Mortality levels of marine turtles due to entanglement in drifting FADs are still unknown and need to be
assessed.
4.8.2 Longline fishery impacts
A discussed earlier, sharks comprise an important proportion of the catches of longline fleets,
representing the majority of the catch in some fleets – such as the Spanish, UK and Portuguese
longline fleets, for which some shark species are intended catch. However, some longline fleets do
catch sharks as unintentional bycatch.
With regard to seabirds, in the absence of seabird bycatch data from observer programmes, risk of
bycatch has been identified through analysis of the overlap between albatross and petrel distribution
and IOTC longline fishing effort, based on data from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database93. A
summary map indicating the overlap between seabird distribution and IOTC longline fishing effort is
shown in Figure 4.8. The 2007 analysis of tracking data indicated that albatrosses breeding on
southern Indian Ocean islands spent 70–100 % of their foraging time within areas overlapping with
IOTC longline fishing effort. The analysis identified the proximity of the critically endangered Amsterdam
albatross and endangered Indian yellow-nosed albatross to high levels of pelagic longline effort.
Wandering, shy, grey-headed and sooty albatrosses and white-chinned petrels showed a high overlap
91 Filmalter et al., 2013.

92 IOTC, 2009.
93 ACAP, 2007.
Page 59
with IOTC longline effort. Data on distribution during the non-breeding season was lacking for many
species, including black-browed albatrosses and white-capped albatrosses (known from bycatch data
to be amongst the species most frequently caught).
In 2009 and 2010,new tracking data were presented to the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and
Bycatch. This filled a number of gaps in the 2007 analysis, particularly for sooty albatross, and for
distributions of juveniles of wandering, sooty and Amsterdam albatrosses, and white-chinned and
northern giant petrels94. This analysis indicated substantial overlap with IOTC longline fisheries.
10°E 20°E 30°E 40°E 50°E 60°E 70°E 80°E 90°E 100°E 110°E 120°E 130°E 140°E 150°E 160°E
20°N
Colonies Longline Effort

^_ colonies (millions of hooks)
<1
10°N
10°N
UD
1-5
50%
5 - 10
75%
> 10
95%
0°N
0°N
Range
10°S
10°S
20°S
20°S
30°S
30°S
^_
^^_
_ ^_
40°S
40°S
^
_
^^_
_
^_ ^_
50°S
50°S
^_
^
_
^_
^_
60°S
60°S
70°S
10°E 20°E 30°E 40°E 50°E 60°E 70°E 80°E 90°E 100°E 110°E 120°E 130°E 140°E 150°E 160°E
Figure 4.8: distribution of breeding albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters in the Indian Ocean,
and overlap with IOTC longline fishing effort for all gear types and fleets (average annual
number of hooks set per 5° grid square from 2002 to 2005)
Source: IOTC, 2012
With regard to turtles, information on most of the major longline fleets in the IOTC is currently not
available and it is not known if this fishing activity represents a serious threat to marine turtles, as is the
case in most other regions of the world. The South African longline fleets have reported that marine
turtle bycatch mainly comprises leatherback turtles, with fewer loggerhead, hawksbill and green
turtles95. Estimated average catch rates of marine turtles ranged from 0.005 to 0.3 marine turtles per
1 000 hooks and varied by location, season and year. The highest catch rate reported in one trip was
1.7 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in oceanic waters.
In the period 1997 to 2000, the Programme Palangre Réunionnais96 examined marine turtle bycatch on
5 885 longline sets in the vicinity of Réunion Island (19-25° south, 48-54° east). The fishery caught 47
leatherback, 30 hawksbill, 16 green and 25 unidentified marine turtles, equating to an average catch
rate of less than 0.02 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks over the four-year study period.
94 Delord and Weimerskirch 2009, 2010.

95 IOTC-2006-WPBy-15.
96 Poisson and Taquet, 2001.
Page 60
The Fishery Survey of India carried out a survey of the whole Indian EEZ using four longline vessels
from 2005 to 2009. During this period around 800 000 hooks were deployed in the Arabian Sea, in the
Bay of Bengal and in the waters of Andaman and Nicobar. In total 87 marine turtles (79 olive ridley, four
green and two hawksbill turtles) were caught. Catch rates were 0.302 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in
the Bay of Bengal area, 0.068 marine turtles per 1 000 hooks in the Arabian sea and 0.008 marine
turtles per 1 000 hooks in the Andaman and Nicobar waters. The highest occurrence of incidental
catches in the Bay of Bengal area is probably due to the large abundance of olive ridley turtles whose
main nesting ground in the Indian Ocean is on the east coast of India, in the Orissa region.
4.8.3 Pole-and-line fishery impacts
The practice of pole-and-line fisheries requires the use of live bait that comes from stocks of small
pelagic fish, or from coral reef fish. Estimates of the amount of bait fish needed to catch a tonne of
target species vary widely, but for the main indian ocean fishery in the Maldives this has been
estimated at about 11.6 %97. There have been some concerns historically, about catches/availability of
bait fish in the Maldives, but otherwise there are virtually no impacts on other species, as the catch
operation is highly targeted on tunas.
4.8.4 Gillnet fishery impacts
There are few direct observations on the consequences of the use of gillnets (there have been no
observer programmes implemented in this fishery). However, it is expected that the gear has a
significant impact on various pelagic species and a number of ETP species, such as threatened sharks,
marine turtles and possibly marine mammals This is due to the low species selectivity of the gear and
the fact that nets can be up to 10 km long. Furthermore, gear that is lost at sea continues to drift and
cause incidental mortality. There is no information about the extent of this ‘ghost’ fishing or of its impact
on the affected species, and quantified data for the impact of this gear at regional level are almost non-
existent.
4.9 Mitigation of the ecosystem impacts of fishing

Actions towards mitigation of impacts of tuna fishing have been taken by Member States in the
framework of IOTC in the form of a number of conservation and management measures developed with
the support and in cooperation with, other inter-governmental and non-governmental institutions, such
as Birdlife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), the
Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA).
There has been some debate amongst IOTC members as to whether the organisation has a mandate
for dealing with species that are not in the IOTC list of species. This issue was raised in 2012 and
delayed the adoption of resolutions protecting whale sharks and cetaceans. The measures were
adopted in 2013, when the issue of mandate was not raised again, but it could remain a potential
obstacle to adoption of actions unless there is consensus. As some of the actions proposed continue to
generate resistance from the members directly involved (for example, the ban of wire leaders in longline
gear), resorting to a vote might be blocked by the argument of the lack of mandate.
4.9.1 Sharks
Sharks in the Indian Ocean are currently subject to a number of conservation and management
measures adopted by the Commission, but no specific mitigation measures:
97 Ardill et al., 2013.
Page 61
 Resolution 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries
managed by IOTC includes minimum reporting requirements for sharks, calls for full utilisation
of sharks and includes a ratio of fin-to-bodyweight (5 %) for shark fins retained onboard a
vessel;
 Resolution 10/02 Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-
Contracting Parties (CPCs) indicated that the provisions, applicable to tuna and tuna-like
species, are applicable to shark species;
 Resolution 11/04 On a Regional Observer Scheme requires data on shark interactions to be
recorded by observers and reported to the IOTC within 150 days. The Regional Observer
Scheme (ROS) started on 1 July 2010; and
 Resolution 12/03 On the recording of catch and effort by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of
competence sets out the minimum logbook requirements for most gears, establishing that
catch of all sharks must be recorded (retained and discarded).
In 2012, to reduce the catch rate of sharks, the IOTC Scientific Committee recommended banning the
use of wire leaders. However, in 2013 the IOTC Member States declined to adopt the measure in 2013.
It should also be noted that the amended EU Shark Regulation now requires all shark fins landed by
EU vessels to be landed attached to the carcasses. Proposals for similar requirements at IOTC level
have not been supported by other IOTC members, resulting in the lack of a ‘level playing field’ between
EU and Asian fleets.
4.9.2 Marine turtles
In 2013 the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch (WPEB) made the following
recommendations to the Scientific Committee concerning mitigation measures:
Gillnet: The absence of data for marine turtles on fishing effort, spatial deployment and bycatch in the
IOTC area of competence makes any recommendation regarding mitigation measures for this gear
premature. Improvements in data collection and reporting of marine turtle interactions with gillnets, and
research on the effect of gear types (i.e. net construction and colour, mesh size, soak times, light
deterrents) are necessary.
Longline: Current information suggests inconsistent catches by both area and by gear/fishery. The
most important mitigation measures relevant for longline fisheries are to:
 Encourage the use of circle hooks whilst developing further research into their effectiveness
using a multiple species approach; and
 Release live animals after careful de-hooking/disentangling/line cutting.
Purse seine: All FAD-directed purse seine fisheries should rapidly change to use only ecological FADs
(i.e. improved FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of bycatch species, using
biodegradable material whenever possible). Procedures on a fish aggregating devices (FADs)
management plan, including more detailed specification of catch reporting from FAD sets, and the
development of improved FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of non-target species.
Comment on mitigation of the impacts of FADs is described in section 4.9.4. Existing IOTC regulations
mandate gillnet fleets to report all interaction with marine turtles in their logbooks (but logbooks are not
submitted to the Secretariat). For longline vessels, operators are required to use de-hookers and line
cutters to facilitate safe release of turtles and encourage the use of whole finfish bait, in addition to
reporting all interactions. All Spanish longline vessels are governed by a compulsory longline fishing
management plan for 2011-2013 for surface longliners in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This
plan is currently being reviewed/updated, and includes measures to avoid bycatch of birds, turtles and
non-target sharks.
Page 62
In addition, the IOTC and the Indian Ocean have the South-East Asian Marine Turtle (IOSEA)
Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement under the Convention on Migratory Species, which is
resulting in the collecting of a range of information on fisheries and marine turtle interactions. The
IOSEA database covers information from a wider range of fisheries and gears than that held by the
IOTC. The IOSEA Online Reporting Facility98 compiles information through IOSEA National Reports on
potential marine turtle fisheries interactions, as well as various mitigation measures put in place by its
Signatory States and collaborating organisations. While the information is incomplete for some
countries and is generally descriptive rather than quantitative, it has begun to provide a general
overview of potential fisheries interactions as well as their extent. No information is available for China,
Taiwan/China, Japan, Republic of Korea (among others), which are not yet signatories to IOSEA.
Information is also provided on such mitigation measures as appropriate handling techniques, gear
modifications, spatial/temporal closures etc. IOSEA is collecting all of the above information with a view
to providing a regional assessment of Member States’ compliance with the FAO Guidelines on reducing
fisheries interactions with marine turtles.
4.9.3 Seabirds
IOTC Resolution 10/06 makes it mandatory for vessels fishing south of 25° south to use at least two
seabird bycatch mitigation measures selected from the two columns below, including at least one
measure from column A, and is aimed at effectively reducing the mortality of seabirds due to longline
operations. In addition, CPCs are required to provide to the Commission all available information on
interactions with seabirds.
Column A Column B
Night setting with minimum deck lighting Night setting with minimum deck lighting
Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines) Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines)
Weighted branch lines Weighted branch lines
Blue-dyed squid bait
Offal discharge control
Line shooting device
IOTC Resolution 12/06 is due to come into force on 1 July, 2014, and will require all longline vessels in
the area south of 25° south to use at least two of the following three mitigation measures:
 Night setting with minimum deck lighting;
 Bird-scaring lines (Tori Lines); or
 Line weighting.
The catch rate of sharks is lower with the use of monofilament leaders (the section of line that goes
from the hook to the main line) in the setting of longline gear, instead of wire leaders that are of
widespread use in industrial longliners.
4.9.4 Mitigation of the effects of FADs
In 2013 the IOTC members adopted a Resolution 2013/08 mandating the formulation of FAD
Management Plans that should include initiatives or surveys to investigate and, as far as possible,
minimise the capture of small bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna and non-target species associated with
98(www.ioseaturtles.org/report.php)
Page 63
fishing on FADs. Management Plans should also include guidelines to prevent, as far as possible, the
loss or abandonment of FADs. To reduce the entanglement of sharks, marine turtles or any other
species, the design and deployment of FADs will be based on the following principles, which will be
applied gradually from 2014:
The surface structure of the FAD should not be covered, or only covered with non-meshed
material;
 If a sub-surface component is used, it should not be made from netting but from non-meshed
materials such as ropes or canvas sheets; and
 To reduce the amount of synthetic marine debris, the use of natural or biodegradable materials
(such as hessian canvas, hemp ropes, etc.) for drifting FADs should be promoted.
From 2015 onwards, IOTC States will report on the progress of the management plans of FADs. The
IOTC Scientific Committee will analyse the information, when available, and provide scientific advice on
additional FAD management options for consideration by the IOTC Members in 2016, including
recommendations on the use of biodegradable materials in new and improved FADs and the phasing
out of FAD designs that do not prevent the entanglement of sharks, marine turtles and other species.
When assessing the impact of FADs on the dynamic and distribution of targeted fish stocks and
associated species and on the ecosystem, the IOTC Scientific Committee will, where relevant, use all
available data on abandoned FADs (i.e. FADs without a beacon).
In addition to these regional measures, the EU purse seine fleet, which was a key driver for the new
IOTC Resolution, is taking steps to reduce bycatch and discards as follows99:
 A FAD management programme is already administered by the Spanish administration, and all
FAD logbooks are sent by vessels to the Spanish administration and to the Insituto Español
Oceanografico (IEO). Logbook information contains entries for each FAD operation including a
description of FAD structure, the nature of FAD materials (for example, eco-FAD), and all catch
and bycatch;
 All FADs are being replaced by non-entangling FADs, without the use of old nets. Workshops
have been held for captains, scientists and NGOs to develop a design for non-entangling
FADs, and the technical elements are now agreed; and
 Work is under way on discriminatory buoys. While the current generation of buoys have an
eco-sounder that can estimate biomass and transmit data by satellite, work is taking place with
developers of buoys to design a new generation with transmitters that are more powerful, and
with makers of echo-sounders (Simrad) to develop echo-sounders to identify species and size.
The main objective of this work is to avoid juvenile catches of bigeye tuna.
4.10 The impacts of piracy in the WIO

4.10.1 History and prevalence of pirate attacks
Pirate activities are not new in the Indian Ocean. In fact, more than 30 years ago there were already
piracy attacks in the shipping lanes out of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean. This counters the widely
held belief, and misconception, that it was illegal fishing that motivated the piracy attacks in the Indian
Ocean. While it is possible that fishermen joined the ranks of the pirate operators, it seems more likely
that they did so for the expected financial gains, rather than to defend a traditional way of life under
attack by illegal fishing.
99 OPAGAC, pers. comm., 24 January 2013.
Page 64
The range of the pirate activities, initially concentrated around the Socotra area, expanded in 2008-
2009 to the waters off Somalia, with attacks taking place at 600-700 nm from the Somali coast.
In 2008 the first EU purse seine vessel was hijacked and released after a few days, following the
payment of a fine/ransom. The number of attacks intensified following the second quarter of 2009,
when the fleet stopped fishing and anchored in Seychelles as a way of demanding better protection
during its operations. This was followed by the capture of a second EU purse seine vessel, also under
Spanish flag. Several French vessels were also attacked.
As a result, and as part of the Comprehensive Approach to Somalia, in December 2008 the EU
launched the European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Somalia – Operation Atalanta within the
framework of the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and in response to the rising
levels of piracy and armed robbery off the Horn of Africa and in the western Indian Ocean.
For a number of reasons, including the ground operations by Kenyan / African Union forces in the south
of Somalia, the success of Operation Atalanta, security personnel on board vessels, and the reduction
in the number of easy targets, by the second half of 2012 there was a considerable reduction in the
number of attacks.
Recent data show the decline in the number of attacks. During 2013, up until October, no vessels were
captured by pirates in the region, and other indicators of pirate activity are also declining (see Figure
4.9). It should be noted however, that any increase in fishing vessel numbers in the northern areas of
the WIO could possibly incentivise increased piracy activity again.
Figure 4.9: frequency of piracy-related events in the WIO, since 2009

Source: http://eunavfor.eu/key-facts-and-figures/ (accessed 1 October 2013)
4.10.2 Effects of piracy on fleets

The effects of piracy on the fishing fleets in the area has depended on the size and type of the vessels
involved.
Purse seine vessels have the ability to embark armed military personnel, and unless the vessels are in
the middle of a fishing operation they are fast enough to escape from an attack. Following the attacks
on EU vessels mentioned above, EU purse seine vessels have needed to keep heavily armed security
personnel on board (typically 2-4 personnel per vessel). This represents an additional operational cost.
For the French fleet, France covers the salary costs of military-provided security, although not other
related costs. This is not the case for the Spanish, where private security is contracted, although there
Page 65
is some assistance from the Basque government. In addition, insurance premiums have increased
significantly100.
While purse seine vessels have not had to change from their traditional grounds to any great extent
(see Figure 4.10), in the case of Spanish vessels the Spanish administration has prevented vessels
from fishing within 200 nm of the Somali coast as a condition of the annual fishing permit issued to all
vessels101. French purse seine vessels have also been affected; prior to 2009, 18 French-flagged
vessels operated in the Indian Ocean, but due to increase in piracy, five vessels left the Indian Ocean
to fish in the Atlantic Ocean102.
The effects of piracy have however been greater on gillnet and longline fleets, due to their smaller size
and fishing method, which requires them to return to haul gear.
Pakistani officials reported that, at the height of the Somali operations, 40 % of their vessels (gillnet)
had been attacked at least once in the area103. And the Asian longline fleet abandoned the traditional
fishing grounds for a period of two to three years, with some of the vessels leaving the Indian Ocean
altogether, while others displaced to the southern Indian Ocean, shifting their target towards albacore
tuna. This displacement of effort (see Figure 4.10) is assumed to have contributed to the current level
of overfishing of albacore. In 2012 Asian longline vessels started to carry armed security personnel
(mainly former military personnel from Sri Lanka) and began returning to the traditional fishing grounds
in the Somalia area (see Figure 4.11). EU vessels, which had historically fished in waters off Kenya and
Tanzania, have declined to do so in recent years and have not yet returned to more northern waters,
although this may also be due to their target catch (swordfish and shark) being found further south and
east.

101 Minsterio de Agricultura, Alimentacio y Medio Ambiente , pers. comm., 7 October 2013.
103 WWF-Pakistan, pers. comm., 4 October 2013.
Page 66
2006 – purse seine 2010 – purse seine
2006 – longline 2010 – longline
Figure 4.10: distribution of fishing effort (in days fishing for purse seine, and number of hooks
for longline), before and during the peak of piracy threats
Source: IOTC
Note: LLJP (light green) deep-freezing longliners from Japan; LLTW (dark green): deep-freezing longliners from
Taiwan, China; SWLL (turquoise): swordfish longliners (Australia, EU, Mauritius, Seychelles and other fleets);
FTLL (red): fresh-tuna longliners (China, Taiwan, China and other fleets); OTLL (blue): longliners from other
fleets (includes Belize, China, Philippines, Seychelles, South Africa, South Korea and various other fleets)
Page 67
Figure 4.11: number of hooks set (millions) from longline vessels by 5º square grid and
main fleets, for the years 2011 (left-hand plot) and 2012 (right-hand plot)
Notes: Data as at September 2013. LLJP (light green): deep-freezing longliners from Japan; LLTW (dark green):
deep-freezing longliners from Taiwan, China; SWLL (turquoise): swordfish longliners (Australia, EU, Mauritius,
Seychelles and other fleets); FTLL (red): fresh-tuna longliners (China, Taiwan, China and other fleets); OTLL (blue):
longliners from other fleets (includes Belize, China, Philippines, Seychelles, South Africa, South Korea and various
other fleets)
Other effects of piracy

Apart from the direct impact of piracy on the activities on the fleets, in particular longline and gillnet
operations, the contributions of the fishing operations to the economies of the coastal States were
disrupted because of the rise in piracy. Kenya and Tanzania have had no longline vessels requesting
fishing authorisations since 2008.
There were also added insurance costs that affected not only the fishing vessels, but also surface
transport associated with the fishery, such as cargo vessels transshipping in ports in the area or
bringing supplies for the fishing vessels.
MCS operations in the region can also be assumed to have been disrupted, with a tendency of patrol
vessels to focus on piracy activities when they might otherwise have been engaged with fisheries
patrols.
Finally, it is known that piracy has had a significant impact on fisheries research in the region. The
SWIOFP discussed earlier had to totally re-think its modus operandi with a switch in research activity
from the intended use of the R/V Fritjord Nansen, to the use of wet leases of commercial fishing
vessels, and many of the planned research cruises had to be cancelled. Experiments on bycatch
mitigation measures to be conducted by the International Sustainability Seafood Foundation (ISSF)
were scheduled for the Indian Ocean had to be re-scheduled to other areas.
Page 68
5 Trade in tuna products from the WIO
5.1 Trade flows

Previous text (section 4) outlined the catches originating from the purse seine, longline, pole-and-line,
handline and gillnet fleets in the region. This section explores the flow of product from the point of
landing through to its market destination, and highlights the distinct supply chains for different products
originating from different fleets. Annex E provides a summary of key tuna-processing businesses in the
region.
Of particular interest and importance in the context of existing and possible future FPAs/Protocols,
given their objectives, are:
 The very significant levels of processing that takes place in the region of fish caught by EU
vessels; and
 The very significant levels of supplies to the EU market being provided by catches from both
EU purse seine and longline fleets.
5.1.1 From the purse seine fleet
Given the migratory movement of tuna in the WIO, as described earlier in this report, and the resulting
pattern of catches throughout the year, and given the position and size of the Seychelles EEZ,
Seychelles is well placed to serve as the main regional hub for the purse seine fleet in the WIO. The
vast majority of the frozen purse seine catch in the WIO (around 80 %) is either landed for processing
in Seychelles (around 30 % of landings in Seychelles), or transshipped through Victoria for processing
elsewhere (around 70 % of landings in Seychelles), although at some times of the year vessels land
product direct to processing plants in Mauritius. Newly established deep frozen tuna processing plants
with a capacity of 30 000 tonnes in Mauritius will also intensify the visits to Port Louis of the new
generation of purse seiners vessels. Their characteristics enable the storage on board at -40 °C of dry
deep frozen fish, supplied to the processing plants which export fillets, steaks and saku (frozen sashimi
grade) blocks to markets in Asia and Europe.
Catches from the purse seine fleet in the WIO are predominantly destined for processing plants within
the region. This differs from tuna fisheries in some other oceans, for example the western and central
Pacific Ocean where the majority of product is processed outside the region104. As noted in Annex E
and as shown in Figure 5.1 below, canneries in Mauritius and Seychelles buy very significant
proportions of overall catches made by vessels in the WIO.
Where fish is landed directly to processors, vessels (or their agents) negotiate directly with the
processing plants in the region. However, where transshipment takes place, tuna trading companies
are typically involved in the sale of product from vessels to processing plants105.
The Indian Ocean Tuna cannery in Port Victoria, Seychelles produces around 1.3 million cans of tuna
per day, from an annual supply of tuna of around 70-80 000 t. It is one of the largest tuna canneries in
the world, with seven cold stores to store 25 days’ supply of fish106. The factory has an associated
fishmeal production factory, which uses the cannery’s by-products and bycatch from the fleet. A
subsidiary company, Ocean Products Seychelles, extracts fish oil from tuna heads.

106 NFDS et al., 2013.
Page 69
In Mauritius there are two large canneries, Princes Tuna and Thon des Mascareignes, which have a
combined annual capacity of over 100 000 t, and purchase product landed in Port-Louis, or transshipped from
Seychelles.
Smaller canneries and loining plants in Kenya and Madagascar also purchase product from the purse
seine fleet, either from landings made in the countries (to Mombasa [primarily by part of the Spanish
fleet] or to Diego Suarez, respectively) or with product transshipped from other landings locations.
Some landings made in Madagascar may also be transshipped to other processing locations. The main
processing plant in Kenya (Wananchi Marine Products Ltd) processes product into semi-processed
(cooked) tuna loins, mainly for export to Italian and Spanish canneries, with residual tuna offal and
waste processed into fishmeal and oil and sold locally, but some processing also takes place for ready-
to-eat products in jars.
Only small proportions of overall purse seine catches are transshipped and processed outside the WIO
either in the EU (Italy and Spain), or in Thailand, Iran, Tunisia and Turkey107. Canned and
loined/pouched tuna products from all the processing plants in the region are predominantly destined
for the EU market, with only very small volumes (< 10 %) being sold to other markets, for example in
Africa, Middle East, North America and Asia108.
Two smaller companies based in Seychelles, Oceana Fisheries Co. Ltd. and Sea Harvest Pty. Ltd,
purchase bycatch from purse seiners landing there for processing for the local and international
markets, with product sold as fishing bait, pet food, or ready-to-eat products). Bycatch landed in other
ports is generally only sold domestically through domestic retail marketing channels.
5.1.2 From the longline fleet
Asian longline fleets rely heavily on landing product in Port-Louis, Mauritius, and around 50 % of
longline catch in the WIO is transshipped in Port-Louis. Asian frozen catches of yellowfin and bigeye
tuna are predominantly destined for the Asian sashimi market. Albacore may be traded to canneries
outside the WIO, or in the case of ultra-low-temperature vessels, also sold to sashimi markets in Asia.
Shark and swordfish caught by the Asian fleet is also typically transshipped for sale in Asia.
The Spanish, UK and Portuguese longline fleet targets swordfish and shark. Frozen catches are
predominantly offloaded in Durban, South Africa, although at some times of the year when vessels are
fishing in more northern waters, catches may be landed in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, or in Port-Louis,
Mauritius. Shark fins all end up being traded to Asia, and have historically been transshipped to Asia
from Durban or Mauritius. However, the amended EU Shark Regulation has resulted in some confusion
for vessel operators over whether fins that are partially cut onboard but then completely removed from
the carcass in port are deemed as originating from the country where the land-based processing takes
place. If that is the case, then in future it is likely that all fins would be brought back to Spain/Portugal
attached to carcasses, before being removed and sent to Asian markets. Swordfish carcasses are
transshipped from the WIO back to Europe for subsequent sale, predominantly in Spain, Italy, France,
and Greece. Shark carcasses are transshipped back to Europe, and are then sold in southern
European countries, in Eastern Europe and Russia, or in South America through Brazilian buyers109.
Catches of tuna and swordfish from the Réunion-based long-line fleet are sold fresh in the domestic
market (about 1 000 t per year) or to the EU/France (about 1 000 t per year), with some smaller
quantities also sold in frozen form to Asian markets110.
107 OPAGAC/ANABAC, pers. comm., 7-9 October 2013.

108 SmartFish, 2013.
109 Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin and ORPAGU, pers. comm., 8 October 2013.
110 Oceanic Developpment et al., 2012
Page 70
In Mauritius (a key transshipment hub in the region), local regulations require that bycatch be sold to
the Agricultural Marketing Board, and with the Mauritius Fishermen Cooperative Federation empowered
as the exclusive administrative agent for the Board, this means that the Cooperative Federation sells
landed bycatch. The Ministry of Fisheries is reported to be embarking on a project to establish a
bycatch fish auction market.
5.1.3 From the pole-and-line fleet
All catch from the Maldivian pole-and-line fleet is landed fresh in the Maldives given that most fishing
trips are day trips only, and product thereafter enters one of three main marketing channels. It is:
 Consumed by the domestic population throughout the atolls and more than 200 inhabited
islands in the country, with an estimated 63 700 t consumed domestically in 2012 in fresh or
dried form – see discussion on Maldive Fish below111;
 Processed into ‘Maldive Fish’ by small-scale processors (often home-based in the islands),
before being transported to Malé and then exported to Sri Lanka by one of 3-4 large trading
companies, or being consumed by the domestic market112. Maldive Fish processors purchase
around 10 000-15 000 t of the skipjack landed in the Maldives each year. Maldive Fish is
produced by de-heading and gutting, boiling, sometimes wood smoking, and then sun-drying
skipjack loins, and requires around 3-5 kg of wet fish to produce 1 kg of processed product. An
important by-product of the boiling process is the production of ‘rihaakuru’, a fish paste that has
a high value on the domestic market. Exports of Maldive Fish in 2012 were 1 440 t; and
 Sold to one of five large industrial/buying companies, each of which is allowed to buy skipjack
tuna in specific zones of the EEZ. These companies typically freeze product for export to
canneries overseas, for example in Thailand (17 706 t of frozen skipjack tuna were exported
from the Maldives in 2012), or sell to the Felivaru or Maandhoo tuna canneries in the Maldives.
The two canneries exported 2 003 t of canned tuna in 2012, with around half (982 t) destined
for the EU market, with the balance sold to other markets primarily in the Middle East and North
America. The Maldivian skipjack tuna fishery was accredited by the Marine Stewardship
Council in 2012113.
Catches of albacore from the South African pole-and-line fishery are largely destined for export to
canning markets, with yellowfin catches exported to the EU and the USA and only limited quantities
sold on the domestic market114.
Pole-and-line fisheries in both the Maldives and South Africa are very ‘clean’, with effectively no
bycatch available for marketing.
5.1.4 From the gillnet fleet
As already noted, the gillnet fishery for tuna is concentrated in the northern countries in the WIO. Tuna
catches in Oman, India, Yemen, Pakistan and Iran are predominantly landed in fresh/chilled form,
having been caught by artisanal or semi-industrial fleets115.
111 Fisheries Management Agency, 2012.

112 The Fisheries and Agriculture Diversification Project currently being financed by the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, is exploring ways to add value and further improve the marketing of Maldive Fish in the domestic market, in
Sri Lanka, and in other potential markets such as in the Middle East.
113 http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/indian-ocean/maldives_pole_line_skipjack_tuna
114 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013b.
115 This report does not cover Sri Lankan fisheries given that Sri Lanka is located in the EIO, but it is acknowledged that
some Sri Lankan vessels may fish in WIO waters.
Page 71
In Pakistan and Iran, much of the landed product is destined for tuna canneries in Iran. Pakistani tuna
catch by vessels based in Gwadar, Pasni and Sur is transshipped at sea to carrier vessels that are
reported to have fishing authorisations from both Pakistan and Iran, and which declare catch to be of
Iranian origin when landing at Iranian factories. Construction of the coastal highway has also opened up
a land route from Karachi to Iran. Other catch in Pakistan not sold to Iran follows a number of different
marketing channels. Some quantities are marketed locally in fresh/chilled form (much of which is
consumed by the large Bangladeshi population in Karachi), some is procured by a factory in Karachi
fish harbour producing raw material for Korean surimi plants, and small tuna (such as kawakawa and
frigate tuna) are processed in curing yards in Karachi and Gwadar for export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried
form. Wet salted tuna landed by vessels operating in offshore waters of Pakistan is also processed
before export to Sri Lanka in salted/dried form. In Iran, it is assumed that catches not destined for local
canneries are consumed locally.
Catches from the Yemeni gillnet fleet is destined for Yemeni canneries, but with declining catches in
Yemen, some product is now purchased by Iran, and Yemeni canneries are thought to be under
considerable financial pressure116.
In Oman, Dhofar Fisheries and Food Industries Co SAOG, purchases product from the local Omani
artisanal fleet for processing/canning, but most locally caught product is sold in fresh form, or smoked
locally for local roadside sales117.
In India, a significant proportion of tuna catches is destined for export markets118, with most fish
exported in frozen form, much of it to canneries in Iran (skipjack and yellowfin) or to the United Arab
Emirates (yellowfin loins and whole skipjack). Some whole frozen skipjack is also exported to
Tunisia119.
Bycatch in the gillnet fishery is almost certainly the highest as a proportion of total landings for all the
main gear types considered in this report, but relevant data on the marketing of landed bycatch are not
available and cannot therefore be included this report. However, it is assumed that all bycatch is sold
locally in domestic markets
5.1.5 From the handline fleet
There are three significant artisanal handline fisheries in the WIO, in the Maldives, in Yemen, and in
Oman, all of which are export orientated.
In the Maldives, the artisanal handline fishery produced 44 972 t in 2012 (32 969 t of yellowfin, 9 133 t
of ‘other fish’, 1 981 t of skipjack, with the balance being small quantities of dogtooth, little and frigate
tuna). Catch from the handline fishery is almost entirely focused on the export market, with processing
taking place near the capital Malé near the necessary air transport connections, although small
quantities are sold to the tourist island resorts in the country. In 2012 the Maldives exported 3 252 t of
fresh yellowfin loins, 1 673 t of fresh/chilled yellowfin chunks, 6 001 t of fresh/chilled yellowfin, and
5 501 t of frozen yellowfin120. The EU is the main market for handline caught yellowfin, although other
important markets include the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and Iran) North America (USA and
116 http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/yemen-39-s-tuna-canneries-in-danger-of-collapse-1.965524 (accessed 28

September 2013).
117 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2009.
118 ISSF, 2012.
119 http://www.infodriveindia.com/india-export-data/Tuna-fish-export-data.aspx (accessed 28 September 2013).
120 Fisheries Management Agency 2012.
Page 72
Canada) and Asia (Japan, China, and South Korea)121. Some exports from the Maldives are known to
be traded through Sri Lanka before ending up in final destination markets.
Handline fisheries in Yemen and Oman also produce volumes of fresh yellowfin and other tuna for
export, typically in whole round, loined, headed and gutted, or gilled and gutted form, with most product
sold in regional Middle Eastern markets.
The artisanal handline fishery for tuna in Oman provides catches of higher quality product than that
caught by the gillnet fleet described above, and catches are purchased by trading/processing/export
companies. In 2009 9 786 t of large pelagics were exported from Oman from the gillnet and handline
fisheries (including 285 t of yellowfin tuna, 2 960 t of longtail tuna, and 603 t of skipjack tuna). Almost all
tuna exports in 2009 were to the UAE (with exports by road), and this appears to be the case
historically as well122.
Regional markets in the Middle East also remain the main market outlet for artisanal-caught handline
tuna in Yemen (although historically there have been some exports to the EU), but there is also some
canning of artisanal tuna catches in Yemen from the gillnet fishery as noted above, and total tuna
exports in 2009 (combined for the gillnet and handline fleets) were recorded at 8 421 t123.
5.1.6 Summary of product flows from all fleets
The general flow of product from the WIO to different processing locations and end markets from the
purse seine, longline, pole-and-line, gillnet, and handline fleets discussed above, is summarised in
Figure 5.1. These product flows could change in the future based on a variety of factors, such as
market prices in different countries, investments in processing infrastructure in different countries, the
regulatory framework governing trade, the increasing demand for tuna and increasing purchasing
power in some markets, and new technologies (e.g. ultra-low temperature freezing of tuna).
121 Fisheries Management Agency op. cit.

122 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries op. cit
123 FAO, FishstatJ database.
Page 73
Catching sector Processing sector Main end markets
Thailand, Iran, Tunisia, canning USA (30 % of Thai product)

5-10 %
Purse seine fleet catches (265 000 t) < 10 % EU canning (Italy, Spain)
with around 70-80 % landed in M. East (12 % of Thai product, all Iran
Seychelles either for processing or product, not estimated for Tunisia
transshipment to the processing sector <5%
Kenya (Wanachi – yellowfin loining)
in Mauritius
EU (15 % of Thai canned product,
Skipjack and yellowfin (& some bigeye) 10 %
Madagascar (CCO – canning/loining) 100 % EU processed product, and
> 90 % of product processed in WIO
40 % with balance mainly to Middle East)
Mauritius (Princes – canning
Thon des Mascareignes – canning/loining)
30 %
Seychelles (IOT – canning)

Fresh and frozen top-quality yellowfin and bigeye,
and ultra-low-temperature albacore, to sashimi
markets (mostly in Asia [> 90 %], some in EU and
Longline fleet catches (61 000 t) USA)
Yellowfin, bigeye and albacore Albacore, and lower-grade yellowfin

and bigeye to canneries in WIO and EU, USA and Asia
Swordfish (and shark) elsewhere
Swordfish and shark – 100 % fins to Asia, carcasses to

EU, Eastern Europe / Russia and South America
Figure 5.1: schematic of product flows from the purse seine and longline fleets operating in the WIO
Source: Consultants’ compilation, based on NFDS et al., 2013; other data sources in the text; and personal communication with EU stakeholders
Notes: Figures estimates only. CCO = Conserverie des Cinq Océans, IOT = Indian Ocean Tuna Ltd. Figure does not portray the flow of landed bycatch or waste products from
processing that is described in the text
Page 74
Catching sector Processing sector Main end markets
Frozen skipjack (and yellowfin) to Thai

canneries
Pole and line fleet catches (70 000 t)
Mostly to EU with some to Africa,
Mostly skipjack and yellowfin in Maldives, Fresh skipjack (and yellowfin) straight to Maldivian Middle East and North America
plus some in India, and 3 000 t albacore in canneries or consumed domestically
South Africa
Canning of albacore from South Africa in
canneries of WIO and EU Sri Lanka or consumed in the
Maldives
Production of Maldive Fish in the Maldives
from skipjack
Fresh consumption in the Maldives,
and India
Handline catches (80 000 t)
Loining of yellowfin in Maldives, Yemen,
Mostly yellowfin in Maldives, Oman, India and Mostly to EU and Middle East
Oman and India
Yemen
Canneries in Iran
Canneries in Yemen Mostly to Middle East
Gillnet catches (62 000 t)

Cannery in Oman
Mostly skipjack (and yellowfin) in Pakistan,
Domestic consumption
Iran, India, Oman and Yemen
Smoking/drying in WIO countries
Figure 5.2: schematic of product flows from the gillnet and handline fleets operating in the WIO
Source: consultants’ compilation based on other data sources in the text and personal communication with EU stakeholders.
Page 75
5.1.7 Market prices

Tuna is a global commodity product, and due to the very large amounts of tuna that is transshipped and
traded by international buyers, and the large canning sector worldwide that provides the catching sector
with a range of canning options, global prices for product of similar size/quality are thought to be
generally consistent.
Given that Thailand is a key global market for purse seine caught fish, some relevant price series that
are available are provided below. Data show the marked increases in prices of purse seine caught fish
for canning over 2009 to 2012, but there is an apparent a weakening of prices in 2013124; a factor that
could be of relevance to financial contributions paid by the EU to Kenya/Tanzania under a possible
future FPA/Protocol if contributions are to be related to the value of catch.
Purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif)

€ 3 000
€ 2 500
€ 2 000
€ 1 500
€ 1 000
€ 500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye
Figure 5.3: purse seine frozen tuna prices, Thailand (cif), 2008 to August 2013 (EUR/t)
Source: http://www.customs.go.th
Note: Prices based on weighted average value of imports to Thailand from various countries, converted to EUR
from USD based on mid-year exchange rates for each year shown. Cif = carriage, insurance and freight (costs)
The weakening of prices in 2013 shown in the Thai data over 2012 and 2013 is confirmed by data
provided for the WIO specifically during 2012 and 2013, as shown in Figure 5.4.
124 Probably due to good catches, although this study has not assessed in detail the reasons for prices changes
Page 76
Selected tuna time series data for landed prices in WIO

(EUR/t)
€ 3 000
€ 2 500
€ 2 000
Yellowfin +10 kg
€ 1 500
Skipjack +1.8 kg
€ 1 000
€ 500
€-
mar
may
nov
dec
Sep-12
Jan-13
feb
jun
jul
oct
apr
aug
sep
oct
Figure 5.4: landed prices paid in the WIO for selected tuna products Sep 2012 to Oct 2013
(EUR/t)
Source: OPAGAC
Note: Prices are a regional average of landed prices in the WIO
Given that Japan is an important market for longline caught fish, some price series are provided below,
and show a more static picture over time.
Longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif)

€ 12 000
€ 10 000
€ 8 000
€ 6 000
€ 4 000
€ 2 000
€-
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
whole frozen ALB whole frozen YFT whole frozen BET

fresh ALB fresh YFT fresh BET
Figure 5.5: longline fresh and frozen tuna prices, Japan (cif), 2008 to May 2013 (EUR/t)
Source: http://www.customs.go.jp
Notes: i) Prices based on weighted average value of imports to Japan from various countries, converted to EUR
from USD based on mid-year exchange rates for each year shown, ii) ALB = albacore, YFT = yellowfin, BET =
bigeye.
Poseidon et al. (2013) reported time series of wholesale prices of relevance to EU longline catches, for
example fresh/frozen wholesale mako and swordfish prices in Barcelona (Figure 5.6), and dried and
frozen sharkfin prices in Hong Kong (Figure 5.7), and these are re-presented below. However, it should
be noted that stakeholder consultations in the EU completed during the preparation of this report,
Page 77
suggest that prices paid to vessels are considerably lower than those shown in Figures 5.6 and 5.7. For
example, current prices (October 2013) are EUR < 2/kg for shark (fins and carcasses combined),
EUR 6/kg for shark fins, EUR 1.6/kg for shark carcasses, and EUR 4.5/kg for swordfish. Downward
pressure on sharkfin prices at the time of writing is reported to be in part due to ongoing deliberations
by the Chinese authorities about whether to reduce taxes on sharkfin imports, meaning that buyers are
currently reluctant to make purchases on the expectation that taxes may be reduced in the near
future125.
16
Shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
fresh shortfin mako frozen shortfin mako

fresh swordfish frozen swordfish
Figure 5.6: shortfin mako and swordfish prices (in EUR/kg) in Barcelona, origin (mostly Spain),
2006 to 2012
Source: FAO/Globefish, 2012
Notes: Mercamadrid has quoted unchanging wholesale prices for blue shark carcasses of EUR 5.71/kg fresh,
EUR 3.31/kg frozen, since January 2008
125 Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin and ORPAGU, pers. comm., 8 October 2013.
Page 78
€ 120
Sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong
€ 100
€ 80
€ 60
€ 40
€ 20
€-
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
frozen origin Spain dried unprocessed all origins

frozen unprocessed all origins
Figure 5.7: sharkfin prices (EUR/kg) in Hong Kong, 2002 to 2011

Source: FAO/Globefish, 2012
Notes: i) Data based on unit import statistics, ii) Only a couple of countries (Hong Kong being the most reliable
hence presentation of figures for Hong Kong) distinguish between processed/unprocessed or dried/frozen fins.
This distinction is important, because frozen fins can weigh up to four times as much as their dried equivalents,
so data for frozen product multiplied by four to normalise for water content, iii) Data assumed to be primarily for
blue shark with some shortfin mako
5.2 Imports of tuna to the EU from the WIO

The EU is a main global market for tuna products, and imports of tuna to the EU may come both direct
from WIO countries, and from product caught in the WIO but destined for canneries and loining plants
outside the region, for example in Thailand, before being imported to the EU. As can be seen from the
text and figures below, processing plants in Mauritius and Seychelles in particular, and to a lesser
extent in Madagascar, Kenya and Maldives, provide considerable proportions of the EU’s tuna imports.
In 2012 370 432 t126 of prepared/canned tuna were imported to the EU valued at EUR 1.47 billion, with
the WIO having two of the four main supplying countries: Ecuador (73 636 t, up from 71 331 t in 2011),
Mauritius (46 846 t, up from 43 868 t in 2011), Thailand (45 430 t, down from 72 911 t in 2011),
Seychelles (43 735 t, up from 43 548 t in 2011), and Philippines (30 892 t, down from 35 307 t in 2011).
Madagascar also supplied 8 049 t in 2012 (down from 9 682 t in 2011) making it the 11th-largest
supplier to the EU, and Maldives 982 t (up from 694 t in 2011) making it the 14th-largest supplier to the
EU. The four WIO countries accounted for 26.9 % of the volume of EU imports of prepared/canned tuna
in 2012. Imports from India totalled 19 t in 2012 but it is unclear from data if imports are of catches
made in the WIO or from the EIO.
With respect to loins, EU imports in 2012 were 100 593 t (down from 108 761 t in 2011) valued at
EUR 530 million, mainly from Ecuador (34 126 t, down from 36 333 t in 2011), Mauritius (11 692 t,
largely unchanged from 11 722 t in 2011), Guatemala (9 112 t, up from 7 222 t in 2011) and Thailand
(7 927 t, down from 16 418 t in 2011). Imports of loins to the EU from other WIO countries in 2012
included 4 342 t from Kenya (up from 4 241 t in 2011), 1 366 t from Madagascar (slightly down from
126 The data provided in this and the following paragraphs are Eurostat Comext data provided by DG MARE, 13 March 2013.
Page 79
1 373 t in 2011), and 478 t from Maldives (also slightly down from 489 t in 2011). The four WIO
countries accounted for 18 % of the volume of EU imports of loins in 2012.
Imports to the EU of frozen tuna for industry/processing were 95 277 in 2011 and 104 376 t in 2012
(valued at EUR 254 million), with main suppliers in 2012 being South Korea (13 764 t), Mexico
(13 232 t) and Philippines (10 121 t). Imports to the EU from WIO countries, included 4 896 t from
South Africa (up from 4 385 t in 2011 and making it the 7th-largest supplier to the EU), 4 464 t from
Mayotte (up significantly from 1 945 t in 2011), 1 293 t from Seychelles (down from 1 967 t in 2011),
251 t from Mauritius, and 119 t from Madagascar. These imports from WIO countries represented
10.6 % of the volume of EU imports. Imports from India were 42 t in 2012 but it is unclear from data if
imports are of catches made in the WIO or the EIO.
An additional quantity of frozen tuna for direct marketing was imported to the EU. Quantities are
recorded as 62 031 t 2012 (down from 76 284 t in 2011) valued at EUR 129 million, with the Dutch
Antilles (14 681 t), Panama (13 734 t), Cape Verde (9 586 t) and Mexico (8 112 t) the most important
providers of product. WIO countries accounted for 11.6 % of the volume of EU imports of frozen tuna
for direct marketing, with product being imported only from Mauritius (4 064 t in 2012, unchanged from
4 071 t in 2011), Seychelles (3 075 t in 2012, up from 2 372 t in 2011) and Yemen (62 t down from 67 t
in 2011).
The table below shows how important the WIO is for EU imports relative to imports from other areas.
Table 5.1: EU imports of different tuna products, by region (t)
South
and WIO as
central West % of
WIO America Asean Africa Pacific Other Total total
Canned 99 611 89 366 99 684 60 724 19 578 1 469 370 432 27 %
Loins 17 879 51 875 10 651 3 805 12 644 3 739 100 593 18 %
Frozen for
consumption 7 201 40 588 132 12 796 325 989 62 031 12 %
Frozen for
industry 11 024 30 181 26 385 10 414 15 325 11 047 104 376 11 %
Total 135 714 212 011 136 853 87 739 47 872 17 243 637 432 21 %
WIO as % of total 73 % 42 % 73 % 69 % 41 % 9%
Source: Consultants’ compilation based on analysis of Eurostat Comext data provided by DG MARE
5.3 EU and Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in the WIO

From the mid 1970s African countries in the WIO (along with other countries in Africa, the Caribbean,
and the Pacific) enjoyed preferential market access for exports to the EU under the Lomé Convention
(1976-2000), and more recently the Cotonou Agreement. Preferential access takes the form of duty-
free access for processed tuna products (cans/loins), while competing exports from other countries are
subject to a 24 % tariff. However, under World Trade Organization (WTO) law non-reciprocal trade
agreements (as was the case under the Lomé Convention and Cotonou Agreement) are deemed to be
discriminatory to non-ACP developing countries. The Lomé Convention was thus replaced by
commitments under the Cotonou Agreement to make ACP-EU trade relations reciprocal and complaint
with the WTO by 2008. This resulted in trade arrangements being reformulated for ACP countries under
reciprocal EPAs. These EPAs are intended to be ‘tailor made’ to suit specific regional circumstances,
and to go beyond conventional free-trade agreements, focusing on ACP development, taking account
of their socio-economic circumstances and include co-operation and assistance to help ACP countries
implement the Agreements.
Page 80
Under existing rules, without full EPAs in place, ACP LDCs (shown in bold in Table 5.2) fall back on the
EBA arrangement providing for preferential access to the EU market under the EU Generalised System
of Preferences (GSP), although this is a unilateral and not a contractual arrangement and does not
contain improved EPA rules of origin for processed fishery products. Other ACP non-LDCs are eligible
for the EU’s GSP tariff reductions.
In the WIO there are three EPAs under negotiation, and a summary of the status of these negotiations
is provided in Table 5.2.
Whilst the thrust towards regional economic integration of the WIO African ACP countries has
progressed through the interim EPAs (IEPAs), regional EPAs still remain outstanding, and negotiations
for comprehensive EPAs with all WIO African ACP countries are still in progress. There is now urgency
surrounding these negotiations, because by 1 October 2014 the ACP countries that have not ratified
IEPAs (or concluded full EPAs) with the EU will be delisted from the Market Access Regulation. LDCs
could then use the EBA arrangement under EU GSP (i.e. 0 % tariff access on tuna) but other more
developed countries would lose their 0 % tariff access. The only affected country of the WIO would be
Kenya.
Page 81
Table 5.2: status of EPAs in the WIO

Region Current status Next steps and issues
Eastern and In 2009 Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe and Negotiations for the comprehensive regional
Southern Africa Madagascar signed the IEPA. The Agreement has EPA are open. The next round of talks should
(ESA) been provisionally applied since 14 May 2012. The take place at technical and Senior Official
European Parliament gave its consent on 17 level, but there is no agreed date yet, and no
January 2013. The inaugural EPA Committee dates have been set for the next EPA
Comoros, under the Interim EPA was held in October 2012 in Committee in 2014.
Djibouti, Eritrea, Brussels and the second meeting took place in May
ESA countries are seeking further
Ethiopia, Malawi, 2013 in Mauritius. The Customs Cooperation
derogations on rules of origin (like the one
Madagascar, Committee and the Joint Development Committee
granted to Mauritius on skipjack127). Mauritius
Mauritius, were also held in the margins of the EPA
is concerned by the negative impacts of the
Seychelles, Committee.
EU Autonomous Tariff Quota (tuna loins
Somalia, Sudan,
22 000 t at 0 %) on its loins exports to the
Zambia, Zimbabwe
EU.
Eastern African Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda EAC insisted to refer all outstanding issues to
Community (EAC) agreed a framework EPA (mainly dealing with trade ministers for political guidance for further
in goods) on 28 November 2007, and are now work. The EU considers that some of them
negotiating a comprehensive regional EPA. The can still be discussed at technical and Senior
Burundi, Kenya, framework agreement has not been signed or Officials level before a ministerial meeting.
Rwanda, ratified. The latest Senior Official meeting in Arusha Both parties now need to agree on the way
Tanzania, Uganda from 17-19 July 2013 was meant to be the final forward.
meeting before the ministerial meeting to conclude
Kenya is particularly keen to see agreement
of the EPA. The long list of outstanding issues did
on the full EPA to secure its export sectors,
not warrant a successful final ministerial meeting.
but cannot move bilaterally for
About half of the outstanding issues were mutually
implementation of the IEPA if the full EPA
agreed to be referred to ministers.
fails as it is bound by the customs union with
other EAC States (country possibly impacted
by the 1/10/2014 Market Access Regulation
amendment).
South African An IEPA was signed by the EU and by Botswana, Negotiations focus on reaching a
Development Lesotho and Swaziland on 4 June 2009. comprehensive agreement with the whole
Community Mozambique signed the agreement on 15 June SADC EPA Group including South Africa.
(SADC) 2009. Namibia has indicated it is not ready to sign.
Agricultural market access is a key issue.
The agreement has not been ratified.
Mozambique will maintain its preferential
Last Technical Working Group and Senior Official market access as an LDC under EBA of the
Angola, Botswana,
Meeting took place in September 2013 in South EU GSP if the negotiations do not succeed.
Lesotho,
Africa. It addressed all matters: market access,
Mozambique,
textual unresolved issues, rules of origin and trade-
Namibia, South
related issues.
Africa, Swaziland
Source: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf (accessed 15 August 2013),
and DG MARE, pers. comm., September 2013
Note: countries categorised as least developed countries (LDCs) are shown in bold in the left-hand column
127 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:240:0036:0038:EN:PDF which provides for a) an

automatic derogation to the beneficiary ESA States (Mauritius, Seychelles and Madagascar) for 8 000 t of preserved tuna;
and b) a derogation to Mauritius so that 2 000 t of preserved skipjack of HS Heading 1604 manufactured from non-
originating skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) of HS Heading 0303 is regarded as originating in Mauritius for the purposes of
imports to the EU during the period of 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.
Page 82
6 The EU tuna fleet in the western Indian Ocean
6.1 The EU fleet

6.1.1 Purse seine vessels
6.1.1.1 Fleet activity
Earlier text in section 4.2 described the activities of the purse seine fleet operating in the WIO, the
catches made, the effort deployed, and the catch mix. As evident from this text, the purse seine fishery
in the WIO is dominated by the activities of the EU fleet, which account for 66 % of total purse seine
catches when considering catches by Spain and France. This very different to the situation in the west
central Pacific, where EU purse seiners represent only 2 % of the total purse seine fishery.
(Poseidon et al., 2013), and to the eastern Atlantic where EU purse seiners account for around
45 % of the total purse seine catch 128.
The EU fleet is represented by three associations (with the two Spanish associations also members of
the umbrella organisation Confederación Española de Pesca [CEPESCA]):
 Organisation des producteurs de thon congelé (ORTHONGEL), representing French-flagged
vessels in the WIO;
 Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores (OPAGAC)
representing Spanish-flagged vessels in the WIO; and
 Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores (ANABAC),
representing Spanish-flagged vessels in the WIO.
All EU vessels are roughly comparable in terms of size and specification. The fleet is characterised by
vessels of 80-100 metres, with storage capacity of 1 500 m3, and engine power of around 3 500 kw.
Vessels are typically manned by a crew of around 30. Some of the more modern vessels have ultra-
low-temperature capabilities, meaning they can freeze tuna to temperatures as low as − 45C. Catching
vessels are supported by support vessels (see earlier discussion in section 4). Based on data earlier in
this report on catches and vessel numbers, an average catch per vessel of just under 10 000 t per year
can be assumed.
Given the earlier text already provided on purse seine fisheries in the WIO (for example catches,
access arrangements, bycatch mitigation and FAD management measures), this section provides
additional (largely qualitative) discussion about the EU fleet’s activities, and potential developments in
the future, based on consultations with the three associations concerned (and references are not
therefore provided for specific statements made in the following text).
As noted earlier, and inferred from the catch mix and use of FADs described in section 4, the fishing
strategy of all vessels, while similar, is distinguished by a higher dependency by the Spanish fleet on
the use of FADs, and correspondingly on catches of skipjack. Within the French fleet, which targets
more fishing on free schools for yellowfin tuna, it is common for a few vessels to search for new schools
of tuna, and once found they start fishing them and then inform the rest of the fleet. French vessels may
also specifically target skipjack depending on skipjack prices and fishing season, and use FADs
particularly in the Mozambique channel. The higher focus on yellowfin tuna and a lower dependency on
FAD fishing by the French fleet are closely linked to the remuneration system of the crew. Seafarers on
French vessels are paid a proportion of the total value of the catch landed (with fish of less than 1.5 kg
not included for the calculation of the total catch value, thus creating a disincentive for the crew to catch
128 COFREPECHE et al., 2013b.
Page 83
small-size tuna), as opposed to a proportion of the total tonnage landed, which is the system used by
the Spanish vessels.
Having noted this slight difference in strategy, the fleets from Spain and France are otherwise largely
comparable in that they are characterised by vessel movements determined entirely by the location of
fish, rather than by any other economic factors such as port costs, fuel costs at different bunkering
locations, etc. This means that the fleet can be found in the Mozambique channel from March to April
(Iles éparse and Madagascar’s EEZ), in the EEZ of Kenya and Tanzania from May to July, and off the
Somali EEZ from August to October in the case of the French fleet and to November in the case of the
Spanish fleet, and finally in the Seychelles EEZ until February (in the northern part of the Seychelles
EEZ first, and then throughout the zone, including in the northern part of the Mauritian EEZ).
Given the large percentage of total catches made in the high seas off Somalia and in Seychelles
waters, the high concentration of total landings to Victoria, Seychelles is understandable (as described
in section 5.1.1). Landings into Mauritius and Madagascar occur when vessels are fishing close to, or in
the EEZs of those countries.
Catch rates in different zones may vary significantly between years for any specific month, but as long
as vessels successfully follow the migration of the fish, catch rates at different times of the year in
different zones do not vary enormously. However, it is the case that:
 Catch rates in the Mozambique channel in March and April are often relatively low. As a result
vessels may typically conduct repairs in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, during this period as
necessary facilities/support services are not available in Seychelles; and
 FAD catch focusing on skipjack in Seychelles has lower catch rates than in high seas areas in
the Somali basin – the ocean current from Chagos and Seychelles going west splits into two
when it hits the African coast, and the part that goes up to the Somali basin is very rich in
primary production leading to high concentrations of plankton, and so of skipjack.
This pattern of fishing activity and resulting catches, is summarised in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: estimated typical EU purse seine dependency on different fishing zones
Contribution of zone to total Months of year in zone
Country catch
French vessels Spanish French vessels Spanish
vessels vessels
Seychelles 35 % 30 % Nov-Feb Dec-Feb
Mauritius 4% 1% Feb-March Feb-March
Comoros 1% 1% March/April March/April
Mozambique 2% 2% March/April March/April
Mayotte 5% 1-2 % April April
Madagascar 1% 3-5 % May/July May/July
Kenya 1% 1-2 % May/July May/July
Tanzania 1% 1-2 % May/July May/July
High seas 51 % 50-55 % Aug-Oct Aug-Nov
Source: Estimated based on data provided by DG MARE for FPA catches, and ORTHONGEL, OPAGAC and ANABAC,
pers. comms, 7-9 October 2013
Note: Figures are approximate only, and vary per year
Some additional comments on access by EU purse seine vessels are appropriate, as follows:
 Access to the EEZs of Kenya and Tanzania are by private access arrangements, and the
catching sector associations report the considerable legal uncertainty over this access, given
the necessary yearly application process;
Page 84
 The EU fleet, as noted in section 3 of this report, does not fish in the BIOT, given that Chagos
has been proclaimed as an MPA. Historically (for example, in the period 2006 to 2011) catches
from the Chagos EEZ represented approximately 3 % of the French fleet’s total catch in the
WIO;
 Disputed maritime boundaries in the WIO pose problems for vessels in terms of reporting.
While vessels typically have vessel authorisations to fish in all zones, the presence of ‘grey
areas’ means that vessels have to avoid such zones altogether, declare catches to the
administrations of both countries, or run the risk if they do not declare catches and entry/exit to
both administrations of being accused of fishing illegally in one country or the other. The
disputed area between Îles Éparses and Mozambique, and the Tromelin EEZ are cases in
point;
 Additional problems have arisen for EU (Spanish) vessels in the past. Fishing zones as
specified in FPAs/Protocols have not been respected by national authorities as the basis for
determining where vessels are allowed to fish based on notification to national authorities. The
case of the fishing zone specified in the EU/Mozambique FPA/Protocol is a case in point; and
 Access to Mayotte by the purse seine fleet is not expected to change from 2014 when Mayotte
becomes part of the EU.
While the current EU fleet in the WIO is comprised of 22 vessels, historically, vessel numbers have
been higher, which perhaps goes part of the way in explaining why purse seine vessel fishing
opportunities provided in FPAs/Protocols in the region exceed 40 (see Table 3.1). As already
explained, these declines in vessel numbers have largely been the result of piracy in the region (as
outlined in section 4.10). With the apparent improvements in the piracy situation, one might expect an
increase in EU vessel numbers in the coming years given that EU vessels authorised to fish in the WIO
under IOTC capacity limits are considerably in excess of the current 22 operating (see section 4.2.1 for
previous discussion on future evolution of the EU fleet).
Some important developments in support of improved fisheries management can be noted over and
above those already presented in this report, for example FAD management and bycatch reduction
measures.
Specifically relevant to the EU fleet (both purse seine vessels, and longline vessels discussed below in
Section 6.1.2) is the landing obligation which is one of the key elements of the Basic Regulation of the
reformed CFP (Article 15). The landing obligation (or ‘discard ban’) will be introduced gradually over the
next few years, and will apply to EU vessels operating in EU waters and in non-Union waters not
subject to third countries' sovereignty or jurisdiction. The potential impacts for vessels fishing outside of
EU waters, including in the WIO, will be the subject of an EU-funded study129.
Spanish vessels represented by OPAGAC have been in discussions with WWF/Spain about engaging
with a Fisheries Improvement Programme (FIP) to bring about further improvements in fisheries
management. In the case of ANABAC, associated companies have engaged in Friend of the Sea
certification since 2010 (Pevaeche group) and with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (Echebastar
group) since early 2013. The Spanish and French fishing industry, in cooperation with the Long
Distance Regional Advisory Council (LDRAC) and the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation
among African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (COMHAFAT) have also jointly launched a ‘Tuna
Transparency Initiative’. The focus of this initiative is on reducing IUU fishing, on capacity building in
129 Specific Contract for the provision of advice on the management of discards in EU fisheries beyond EU waters. Under
framework contract number - MARE/2012/21: Scientific advice for fisheries beyond EU Waters.
Page 85
coastal countries, and on a transparent and harmonised legal framework of rules and regulations
regarding access.
6.1.1.2 Economic and social impacts of the purse seine fleet
In terms of the economic and social impacts of the EU fleet, some brief information is provided in this
section (and in section 6.1.2.2) based on available literature, in order to better inform the Kenya and
Tanzania ex ante evaluation reports completed as part of this assignment.
Catching-sector employment onboard EU purse seine vessels is around 30 crew per vessel130, with
around 20 members of the crew on each vessel being EU nationals, with the balance from third
countries. Thus for the fleet of 22 vessels currently operating in the WIO, it can be estimated that 420
EU jobs and 210 third country jobs are created in the catching sector. Small numbers of jobs in the EU
are also created in the areas of vessel management and representation.
An especially notable feature of EU purse seine catch is the very high levels of processing of catch that
takes place in the WIO generating considerable benefits to countries in the region. As noted in Annex
E, WIO cannery and loining plants generate around 6 000 jobs in the WIO in processing. Applying the
percentage (66 %) of the total purse seine catch in the WIO made by the EU purse seine vessels to this
figure (given that WIO processors process virtually no longline caught fish), it can be estimated
(assuming no additional imports of tuna from other oceans for processing) that around 3 900 onshore
processing jobs are created by EU fleet activities in the WIO.
In addition, in Seychelles alone it is estimated that around 750 people are employed on a part-time
basis in unloading fishing being landed there (observations made by the contractors in Seychelles
during other assignments). Given that around 80 % of the landings made in the WIO are made in
Seychelles (as estimated in section 5), and that EU vessels contribute around 66 % of total purse seine
catches, assuming similar levels of employment creation for fish landed in other ports, a total of around
620 part-time jobs are estimated to be generated in the WIO from the landing activities of the EU purse
seine fleet.
The recent evaluation of the Seychelles FPA/Protocol131 made an estimation of the total economic
benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in the WIO, with Annex K of that report, providing an
explanation of the methodology used. The economic model constructed (for 2011) can be used to
determine that on a yearly basis (and subject to changes in inputs costs and sales prices) the EU purse
seine fleet in the WIO generates:
 EUR 23 million of crew income for EU nationals and EUR 11.5 million of crew income for non-
EU nationals;
 EUR 102 million of net profits for EU vessel owners132;
 EUR 16.7 million of value added in the upstream sector in the EU from vessel insurance, and
value-added on vessel construction and overheads and management charges in the EU;
 EUR 1.7 million of value added from fish caught in the WIO being processed in the EU;
 EUR 4.1 million of upstream (supplies) and downstream (offloading) value added by third
countries from port calls in the WIO; and
130 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013; and ORTHONGEL/OPAGAC/ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 7-9 October
2013.
131 NFDS et al., 2013.
132 Note that this figure may be an over-representation given the costs and revenues assumed in the model.
Page 86
 EUR 6.4 million of value added in WIO tuna processing plants from the processing of EU-
caught purse seine fish.
These economic and social benefits are summarised in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: summary of key economic and social benefits created by the EU purse seine fleet in
the WIO
In EU In WIO
Employment benefits (number)
Upstream vessel support and port calls/services N/A 620
Catching sector 420 210
Downstream processing sector N/A 3 913
Economic benefits (EUR)
Upstream vessel support, and port calls/services 16.7 million 4.1 million
value added
Crew income 23 million 11.5 million
Vessel owner profits 102 million 0
Processing sector value added 1.7 million 6.4 million
Source: Consultants’ compilation
Notes: N/A = not available. Port call employment is largely part-time, while other estimates of employment are for
full-time equivalents. Catching-sector crew employment and income may include non-EU nationals from outside
the WIO. Figures in the table do not include financial contributions paid by the EU or by EU vessel owners to
third countries in the WIO under either FPAs/Protocols or private sector access arrangements
6.1.2 Longline vessels

6.1.2.1 Fleet activity
As with the purse seine fleet, earlier text in this report has provided much information on the longline
fleet in terms of catches, bycatch mitigation, product flows, etc., so text in this section adds to the
information already provided, but focuses more specifically on the EU fleet.
The contribution of the EU longline fleet to total longline catches in the WIO (around 10 % in 2007-
2011133) is far lower than the contribution of the EU purse seine fleet to total purse seine catches in the
region. The EU fleet can be divided into two different fleets based on their target catch i) Spanish, UK
and Portuguese fleets targeting swordfish and sharks, i.e. sharks are not a bycatch of fishing for
swordfish fishing but a target species in their own right, and ii) French/Réunion vessels targeting tuna
and swordfish.
The Spanish fleet of 20 vessels is represented by a number of different associations as follows:
 Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Marin;
 Organización Palangreros Guardeses (ORPAGU);
 Asociación Empresarial Espaderos Guardeses; and
 Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Palangreros de Altura (ANAPA).
The Spanish fleet began fishing in the region in 1993, peaking at 28 vessels in 2008 before declining to
15 vessels in 2009, largely because of piracy in the region. Vessel number has now increased to 20.
133 NFDS et al., 2013.
Page 87
Portugal had three vessels in 2012, compared to more than three times as many (16), in 2006, again
with piracy being the main cause for the decline. The UK has also has three vessels, beneficially owned
in Spain. Vessel characteristics, movement and strategy for both the UK and Portuguese fleet are
broadly similar to Spanish longline vessels.
Vessels target swordfish (about 50 % of total catch volumes) and shark, but also catch small amounts
of albacore, bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Spanish vessels show catches of ‘others’ representing more
than 50 % of total catches and catches of tuna at less than 10 % of total catches, indicating a strong
reliance on catches of shark. In terms of catch values, it may be typical for swordfish to represent as
much as 70 % of the value of the catch, sharks 20 %, tuna 5 % of the value of catch, and ‘others’
around 5 %.
Vessels most commonly land catch (and make any necessary repairs) in Durban, South Africa,
although some landings are made in Diego Suarez, Madagascar, and Port-Louis, Mauritius. Catches
are highly concentrated in high seas areas (> 75 % of total volumes), although catches are also made
in both Mozambique and Madagascar134. There are no current catches in Kenya or Tanzania, and
vessels are typically fishing much further to the south. Swordfish and shark are more
disseminated/disparate than schooling tuna stocks, although of course their location is still linked to
ocean currents and production. Nevertheless, the longline vessels are more dispersed, than are purse
seine vessels. As catch is so dependent on temperature, in the summer southern African months (i.e.
European winters), fish/vessels tend to move southwards, and then north again in the cooler months.
Vessels use monofilament surface long line gear with branch lines over 14 m long spaced evenly along
the mainline at a mean distance of around 80 m. Vessel trips are typically 2.5-3 months in duration, and
vessels are upwards of 27 m in length.
Spanish, Portuguese and UK longline fleets are reported by the industry135 to be under severe
economic pressure at the current time. The issue of the current fall in sharkfin prices due to ongoing
discussion over Chinese taxes on imports of fins has been discussed in section 5. In addition, shark fin
prices are being negatively affected by NGO activity, carcass prices are also under pressure in key
markets, while at the same time costs of production, for example the cost of fuel, remain high. Fleets
are also reporting negative financial impacts of the amended EU shark regulation in the following ways:
 Cutting fins partially onboard, then tying fins down flat to carcasses, and packing them takes
more time, and more storage space. This in turn means shorter trips and more/costly steaming
time; and
 When in port, vessels must find a suitable freezer plant to do the final removal of fins from
carcasses, sometimes having to wait to so, and have to pay around EUR 3 000 pre unloading
for the processing.
The French fleet operates from, and close to Réunion, with a fishery that began in 1991 and had 28
operating vessels as of 2012. French vessels are relatively small, with none longer than 22 m and two-
thirds of the fleet are under 16 m136. Over the last ten years, French vessels have recorded swordfish
catches as representing more than 40 % of their total catches. French vessels record catches of
‘others’ (i.e. sharks) at just 6 % of total catches, with tuna catches representing more than 50 % of total
134 Catches of shark in Madagascar are limited by a maximum catch limit for EU vessels of 200 tonnes specified in the
FPA/Protocol between the EU and Madagascar.
135 Pers. comm., 8 October 2013, Spanish longline associations. The contractors have not verified in any quantitative
manner whether these claims are true or not.

136 NFDS et al., 2013
Page 88
catches (14 % yellowfin, 16 % bigeye, and 20 % albacore – see Table 4.8). Catches are made primarily
in the waters of Réunion, Madagascar and nearby in high seas areas.
Regarding vessel numbers and potential evolution in the coming years, and in the context of informing
ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania, it
appears unlikely, given current financial pressures, that Spanish, UK and Portuguese fleet numbers will
increase. It is also far from clear whether the decline in piracy may encourage vessels to fish further
north (or whether doing so could serve to increase levels of piracy again). Given the target catch for
Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels of shark and swordfish found in more southerly areas, a
northward shift in activities might be unlikely. However, such a northward movement cannot be ruled
out given historical catches in more northerly areas, and potential local depletion of swordfish stocks in
current fishing grounds, which might cause vessels to move fishing location. It is not thought likely that
Réunion vessels, given their smaller size and operating patterns, would be interested in fishing in either
Kenya or Tanzania under a FPA.
6.1.2.2 Economic and social impacts of the longline fleet
Neither the Seychelles or Comoros FPA/Protocol evaluations, nor the evaluation of the Mauritius
FPA/Protocol137 provide any information on the employment or value-added created by the EU longline
fleet in the WIO. However, stakeholder consultations completed in the preparation of this report138
suggest that longliners typically have around 15 crew onboard, with five being from the EU and 10 from
third countries. Applying these figures to the EU fleet of 20 longliners, an estimate can be made of 100
EU and 200 third country jobs created by the activities of the EU longline vessels operating in the WIO.
Onshore employment is created by EU vessel activity in ports, such as landing fish, repairs,
transshipping or taking on supplies. This occurs primarily in Durban, but also Port-Louis and Diego
Suarez for Spanish, UK and Portuguese vessels, and Réunion for vessels based in Réunion. But
quantitative estimates of onshore employment and related value-added are not available for inclusion in
this report. Likewise, given that estimates are not included in the other published evaluation reports, it is
not possible to provide quantitative information on catching sector value-added, or on upstream or
downstream economic benefits and value-added generated in the EU and the WIO based on the
activities of the EU longline fleet.
6.1.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, both the EU purse seine and the EU longline fleets have historically relied on the EEZs of
a number of countries in the WIO, as well as high seas areas, for its catches. Even though piracy has
caused fishing patterns to change somewhat with a shift to the south and east away from Somali
waters, both fleets still rely on a number of different fishing zones for their catch, and given the
migratory nature of tuna, a regional network of fishing possibilities is critical for the EU fleet’s survival.
This is perhaps especially the case for the purse seine fleet when considering the proportion of catches
in high seas areas and EEZs of countries in the region for the two fleet types. Of particular note is the
fact that Kenya and Tanzania’s EEZs remain the only Coastal States of the WIO where EU-flagged
purse seine vessel have fishing access outside of FPA/Protocols.
Given the historical location/pattern of catches by the EU fleet as documented in this report, the
potential EU fleet evolution, and the yearly movement of tuna stocks in the WIO as discussed earlier, it
can be concluded that both the existing FPAs/Protocols in the WIO (with Comoros, Seychelles,
Mozambique and Madagascar, and with the Mauritian/EU Protocol expected to come into force), and
137 Oceanic Developpment et al., 2011.

138 CEPESCA, pers. comm., 5 November 2013.
Page 89
access by the EU fleet to the EEZs of other countries (potentially including Kenya and Tanzania under
a future FPA/Protocol), will remain vital for the continued viability of the EU fleets in the WIO in terms of
providing a regional network of fishing opportunities. A continued decline in piracy in the region,
FPAs/Protocols with Kenya and Tanzania, and resolution of Somalia’s EEZ delimitation and fishing
authorisation problems, could all serve to support the activities of the EU fleets in the future.
The dependency on Kenya and Tanzania shown in industry consultations completed during the
completion of this report, and earlier comments in the report about all EU vessels taking up vessel
authorisations under private agreements, are all noteworthy in the context of the ex ante evaluations of
possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and both countries, and suggest that it is likely that fishing
opportunities provided for EU vessels to fish in Kenyan and Tanzanian waters would be taken up
(subject to the detailed requirements of the possible FPAs/Protocols).
6.2 Key findings from recent evaluations of FPAs/protocols in the WIO, recent events, and
text in this report, of potential relevance to FPAs with Kenya and Tanzania
A number of important findings emerge from consultations completed as part of this assignment, and
from evaluations of FPAs/Protocols and recent events, which are of potential relevance to possible
FPAs/Protocols with Kenya and Tanzania.
1. The EU purse seine fleet’s focus of activities in the WIO, and the movement of tuna stocks in
the WIO, mean that fishing opportunities in the northern waters of Mozambique all the way up
to the horn of Africa are all of potential interest. However, outside of high seas fishing, the
possibility to fish in Seychelles’ waters is by far the most important139;
2. Private access arrangements with both Kenya and Tanzania indicate possible demand by the
EU purse seine fleet for FPAs/Protocols with both countries140;
3. The different specification of ‘fishing zones’ as defined in FPAs/Protocols, and EEZs as defined
by third countries, creates potential ‘grey areas’ and confusion for both EU vessels and the
third country administrations, and is a problem that needs resolution in the future141;
4. There are important ongoing developments within the IOTC about quota allocation or adopting
alternative management actions, which could affect EU vessels in the future142;
5. Piracy in the WIO has had a significant impact on both purse seine and longline fleet activity,
but the situation seems to be improving143;
6. The number of fishing opportunities provided for in existing FPAs/Protocols144 exceeds the
number of vessels currently fishing in the WIO145;
7. Utilisation of longline fishing opportunities provided for in a number of the FPAs has been low in
recent years, most notably due to the impacts of piracy146;
139 Spanish, French, UK and Portuguese fleet representation and Member State administrations, pers. comms, October
2013.
2013.
2013.
142 See section 2.1.9.
143 See section 4.10.
144 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (accessed 28 September 2013)
145 See section 4.
146 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013.
Page 90
8. EU purse seine and longline activity in the fishing zones of countries in the WIO region result in
considerable direct economic and employment benefits in the catching sector, indirect
upstream benefits for business in countries in the WIO and the EU supplying EU vessels with
inputs, and indirect downstream benefits in both the EU and WIO from the processing and
marketing of catches147. The high level of processing of catch within the region148, and the
resulting benefits, is of special note;
9. Catches made in the WIO by EU purse seine and longline vessels contribute significantly to the
EU market (see section 5, which suggests product flows to the EU from the WIO of around
99 000 t of canned tuna, 18 000 t of loined tuna, 11 000 t of frozen tuna for processing, and
7 200 t of frozen tuna for direct consumption);
10. FPAs/Protocols provide for financial contributions to be made by the EU to third countries, and
include significant funds to support the implementation of fisheries policy and sustainable
fisheries. The earmarking of funds for such purposes (which should also address improved
MCS capacities of third countries through possible FPA cooperation with EU control services),
is one of the principal benefits of FPAs/Protocols, and the added value of an EU framework for
access, rather than leaving EU Member States to negotiate private agreements149; and
11. Most recent Protocols signed with countries in the WIO have typically been for a three year
period.150. However a 3 year protocol period is not a policy objective as far as the EU is
concerned, rather this period has been agreed in a number of recent Protocols as a result of
negotiations (but not in all – see Table 3.1). Longer protocols may be desirable for the reason
that they would provide for better security of access, a lower administrative burden for all
parties, and evaluation at a time sufficiently elapsed after the Protocol has been initialed to as
to better assess implementation and impacts. However it is also true that in the case of new
FPAs, both the EU and the third country may prefer not to commit to Protocols that are too long
in duration.
With regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy (see European Parliament 2012, European
Parliament 2013, Council of the European Union 2012, and the recently published Basic Regulation of
the CFP, future FPAs/Protocols will need to:
 Serve to support the EU’s role in strengthening RFMOs, particularly in regard to
transparency in mechanisms for the allocation of fishing opportunities, and ensuring that
recommendations are based on scientific advice;
 Include robust provisions for respect for the principle of restricting access to resources that
are scientifically demonstrated to be surplus for the coastal State in line with the provisions
of UNCLOS;
 Ensure similar landings obligations as to EU vessels operating in EU waters, i.e. no
discards;
 Include robust provisions for safeguarding human rights in line with international
agreements on human rights, and ensuring in all cases the strictest respect for democratic
principles;
 Ensure that the part of access paid for by vessel owners is commensurate with the
benefits, which may imply an increasing share of the cost of access; and
147 See Table 6.2.

148 See section 5.
149 NFDS et al., 2013; COFREPECHE et al., 2013.
150 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm (accessed 28 September 2013).
Page 91
 Ensure that sectoral support is coherent with development and programmes in the third
country, and that financial assistance for sectoral support is closely monitored to assess
the results of the assistance provided.
6.3 A regional FPA?

A recent European Parliament report expressed support for a regional approach to the negotiation and
implementation of the EU’s bilateral agreements151. Given the European Parliament’s position, it is
therefore worth considering briefly possible advantages and disadvantages of a regional WIO
FPA/Protocol providing access for EU purse seine vessels to the waters of a number of countries in the
WIO, and how realistic/possible it might be to reach such a regional agreement.
A regional agreement could provide significant benefits in terms of ‘simplification’, both in terms of the
negotiation process, i.e. the need to negotiate one regional agreement rather than a number of bilateral
ones, and in terms of standard conditions applying across different EEZs in the region. However, it
should be noted that the European Commission’s FPA, Protocol, and Annex templates already provide
for a high level of standardisation. A regional FPA could also further support efforts designed to ensure
sustainable exploitation through ensuring that EU fleet catches in the region are assessed in their
totality and in light of regional stock status. Although, once again, ex ante and ex post evaluations of
individual FPAs/Protocols already specifically consider the issue of rational and sustainable exploitation
of living marine resources and the concept of ‘fishing surplus’.
A regional agreement, with regional sectoral funding support from the EU, could however result in a
reduced focus on financial support for improvements in policy implementation in the specific countries
of interest to the EU fleet, which may not be desirable. Also of concern is that the negotiation process
could be extremely protracted and difficult, given the need for the EU to negotiate with a number of
countries in the region that may have different views as to the conditions of access for EU vessels and
the specific content of a regional FPA/Protocol. The difficulties in negotiating EPAs provide some
lessons about the challenges of regional negotiations; challenges that the EU would perhaps rather not
face again.
Given these comments, it is the consultants’ perception that negotiating a regional agreement may not
be practical at the current time. However, individual FPAs/Protocols could nevertheless be used to
push for more regional consistency on issues such as fisheries management, science and compliance,
through the use of consistent legal text, and consistent approaches to sectoral support provided by
different FPAs/Protocols.
151 European Parliament, 2012.
Page 92
7 Conclusions
The final section presents some brief conclusions based on the text of this report, grouped around a
number of key themes.
7.1 Biological opportunities and constraints

None of the key species of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna or swordfish being targeted in the
WIO by EU vessels are either overfished (B < BMSY), or subject to overfishing (F > FMSY), as
highlighted in section 4.7.
Constraints to improved fisheries management of highly migratory species are faced because of
insufficient information and/or a lack of stock assessment for many non-target species (fish, and
endangered, threatened and protected species such as turtles and seabirds), in part because some
important species are not included within the IOTC mandate, and in part because of financial and
human resource constraints in most countries in the region, meaning that biological research is often
limited unless supported by donor projects.
Furthermore, stock assessments are often based on estimations of catches by coastal countries. When
the fishing countries do not supply catches, the IOTC Secretariat estimates the catches for the missing
components. This is particularly relevant for the Indian Ocean, as a large percentage of the tuna catch
comes from small-scale or artisanal fisheries, as opposed to industrial fisheries. Catches from artisanal
fleets are difficult to estimate accurately, especially for countries with an extensive coastline, such as
India and Indonesia.
7.2 Technical opportunities and constraints

A number of important technical opportunities have been seized in the WIO to improve the
sustainability of fisheries in the region. These have included IOTC measures and nationally
implemented initiatives aimed at bycatch reductions and improved FAD management as documented in
section 4.9. It should also be noted, however, that technical developments in the form of FADs
themselves, and the use of supply vessels, have served to effectively increase effort over the years.
Further improving selectivity of fishing methods is an area where opportunities may still exist.
Bycatch from purse seine, longline, handline, and pole-and-line fisheries are not significant considering
the total volumes of catch being made by these fishing methods. Some innovative use of bycatch is
already occurring in the region (for example, in Seychelles and Mauritius), and by-products are already
produced from waste generated by the significant levels of processing in the region (for example, fish
meal from canning factory waste). Bycatch from gillnet fisheries in the northern part of the WIO is likely
to be significant, but it can be assumed that most bycatch is landed and sold domestically.
7.3 Regulatory opportunities and constraints

The IOTC provides a formalised framework and legal basis for regional management of tuna stocks in
the Indian Ocean, and as the RFMO with responsibility for management and conservation of tuna and
tuna-like species, has successfully put in place many regulatory measures aimed at ensuring
sustainable fisheries management. However, an issue of concern, as noted in section 2.1.1, is that
countries can opt out of Resolutions, although few countries have objected to approved Resolutions.
On the other hand, consensus is not necessary to adopt Resolutions, and Recommendations need only
be adopted by a simple majority of the Members present and voting. It should also be noted that while
the IOTC has a key role in the development of multilateral management and conservation measures,
Page 93
other initiatives such as the IOC and the Regional Plan for Fisheries Surveillance (which may have a
more limited geographical coverage) are also important.
IOTC Members have attempted to manage tuna fisheries on the basis of the capacity limitation since
2003. While there are advantages in this approach in theory (ease of enforcement, constant fishing
pressure on the stocks, etc.), the implementation mechanisms chosen by the Members, in particular
since 2006 and 2007, have several weaknesses. The capacity limits were established for groups of
species, with no possibility for vessels to be in the two lists. Vessels (in particular, longliners), were to
declare whether they target tropical tunas, or swordfish and albacore. For the regulation to be effective,
they should not be allowed to switch target to a different species group, to prevent large increases in
fishing pressure from shifts in effort. However, as piracy increased in the Somali region, many vessels
that target tropical tunas moved to targeting albacore and, to a lesser extent, swordfish in southern
areas, with the resulting overfishing of albacore.
However, fishing capacity limitation has also faced opposition from coastal States that want to retain
their options to develop a fleet. In order to resolve this impasse in the negotiations for a limit, the
concept of the Fleet Development Plans was created, although it weakens the original spirit of the
capacity limitation approach. If all Fleet Development Plans are implemented, the fleet will grow to a
level that will make catch limits unavoidable if serious overfishing is to be avoided, and many of the
advantages of effort-based controls will be lost.
Consideration of catch limits to supplement a weakened capacity control has brought up the need for
IOTC Members to discuss allocation criteria. Current difficulties in the negotiations toward a single
mechanism that would be applicable to all species illustrate the challenge facing IOTC Members.
With respect to MCS, the current process of evaluation and action by the IOTC Compliance Committee
on the level of compliance is an evolving process, and important decisions, such as the inclusion of a
vessel in the IUU list, are made without the benefit of clear guidelines as to what constitutes due
process, and can therefore often be political in nature. There is also no standardised scheme of
sanctions and no unified view as to what would constitute adequate sanctions for certain infractions. A
further constraint is that there are still many misconceptions on the part of many IOTC Members as to
what is expected of them once a Resolution is adopted. This means that often decisions are not
transposed into the domestic legislation, and/or no domestic mechanisms are implemented to ensure
compliance. This is especially the case given limited financial and human resources in the region for
MCS, which means that there are few countries in the region with strong MCS capabilities. It is also
noteworthy that there is no regulatory requirement for compliance observers in the WIO (typically
considered important for the detection of certain regulatory infractions), only initiatives aimed at
scientific observation.
The lack of clarity of some maritime boundaries in the WIO is a further constraint to the activities of
fishing sector operators, and to MCS activities.
Some fishing fleets operating in the WIO are subject to regulations with which vessels from other
countries are not obliged to comply. For example, the amended EU shark regulation, requiring shark
fins to be landed attached to carcasses, applies to all EU vessels operating in the WIO, but not to Asian
longline vessels fishing for shark. Likewise, the landing obligation under the Basic Regulation on the
CFP will be phased in over the coming years to apply to EU vessels, but not to non-EU vessels.
Given the strong concentration of tuna catches in the Somali basin, the lack of formalised and
regulatory fishing authorisation regime (with no established/agreed EEZ and no licensing authority),
coupled with the existing threat of piracy in the region off the Somali coast, provide a significant
regulatory constraint, and resolution of these issues provides an important opportunity for
improvements in the future. Developments in this direction would be of significant long-term benefit to
Page 94
fleets operating in the region, and to both Kenya and Tanzania, whose fishing authorisation revenues
have been negatively affected by these issues.
Finally, it is noted that the regulatory basis for access by vessels from DWFNs, is not consistent and
harmonised throughout the WIO. This means that individual DWFN vessels have to comply with
different sets of regulations. As suggested in section 6.3, FPAs/Protocols offer a specific opportunity in
this regard to standardise conditions surrounding access by EU vessels to the fishing zones of
countries in the region. However, a level playing field for all vessels operating in the fishing zone of a
particular country is important.
7.4 Political and strategic opportunities and constraints

FPAs/Protocols in the WIO are important for the EU, given its strong political and strategic interests in
the region. They provide the potential for improved political contact between the EU and countries in
the region, and serve to support the EU’s role in assisting with both improvements in fisheries
management, and with economic development. They also serve to ensure a consistent political and
strategic approach to the provision of access by countries in the region to EU vessels. FPAs/Protocols
between the EU and both Kenya and Tanzania would provide an opportunity to build on existing
political and strategic linkages that the EU has with both countries. In terms of fishing operations, the
FPAs/Protocols provide for continued, secure and stable conditions for the EU vessels operators, which
enables the EU fleet to follow the tuna through the majority of the migratory cycle. The conclusion of
FPAs/Protocols with coastal States with whom the EU does not yet have an FPA, would ensure that
almost all the migratory range of the tuna is accessible to the EU fleet through FPAs/Protocols.
7.5 Contractual opportunities and constraints

Related to the issue of differing regulations for access to fishing zones in the region, are the contractual
insecurities that are present for EU vessels fishing under private access arrangements, rather than
under FPAs/Protocols. Possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU and other potential third countries in
the region provide an opportunity in this regard, and provide a strong argument in support of
FPAs/Protocols rather than the existing private access arrangement, as they would considerably
improve the long-term security of access, and allow vessels to engage in longer-term planning of their
business and operational strategies.
7.6 Economic opportunities and constraints

Fish resources in the region provide economic opportunities for the EU catching sector, for vessels from
within the region, and for other non-EU DWFN vessels152. These economic opportunities relate to
value-addition generated by vessels and the related employment onboard EU and non-EU vessels.
However, also of great importance are the upstream economic and employment opportunities created
for businesses supplying inputs to vessels (particularly for example, fuel suppliers, chandlery services,
etc. based in the region), as well as the downstream processing and marketing activities that result from
catches. This is the case both for the purse seine fleet which is strongly dominated by EU vessels, as
well as the longline fleet, which has an EU component but which is more strongly dominated by Asian
vessels. The very high levels of processing in the region of catches made by the EU and non-EU purse
seine fleet153, specifically by canneries in the region, is a particularly notable feature of the industry in
the WIO, as is the supply of large quantities of fish to markets around the world, and particularly to the
152 See section 6 and Table 6.2.

153 See Figure 5.1.
Page 95
EU from the purse seine fleet. The sale of access to fish by countries in the WIO also generates
important economic revenue for governments in the region, in the form of foreign exchange154.
Opportunities for greater economic benefits to all stakeholders could be based on improved
management of resources for long-term sustainability, and efforts aimed at value-addition, for example
improved marketing and processing. An IOTC resolution aiming at prohibiting transshipments at sea (as
it applies for EU vessels within FPAs) would certainly impact positively on the economies of coastal
states in the region.
Economic benefits are strongly determined by end-market prices, and as this report has highlighted,
while fish prices for purse seine and longline caught fish have increased over the last few years, the
last year has seen falling prices. However, although it is not clear how fish prices will evolve, they will
have an important impact on economic opportunities.
Other factors are also placing economic constraints on some fleets. Some regulations may result in
additional costs or reduced revenues for vessel operators (for example amended EU shark regulation,
IOTC Resolution 2013/08 on FADs). Also as highlighted earlier, the piracy problem in the region has
had significant impacts on vessel operations and costs. Finally, the purse seine fleet’s strategy of
ensuring a regional network of fishing opportunities means that these vessels may often pay for fishing
authorisations to fish in particular zones, but catch only small quantities of fish in those zones.
154 See section 3.2.
Page 96
8 References
EU legislation
Council of the European Union. Basic Regulation on the CFP. Brussels, 10 October 2013.
Commission delegated regulation of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the
Union.
Consolidated versions of EU legal texts presented below are available on the European website
EUR-Lex155.
Council regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing
activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country
vessels to Community waters.
Council regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 of 26 June 2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board
vessels.
Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October
2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council
Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 1605/2002.
Documents on tuna production and trade
Campling, L. and Doherty, M., 2007. A comparative analysis of cost structure and SPS issues in
canned tuna production in Mauritius/the Seychelles and Thailand: Is there a level playing field?
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Branch Fisheries Management (South Africa), 2013.
Draft policy for the allocation of fishing rights in the tuna pole and line fishery: 2013. Available at:
http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/fisheries/21_HotIssues/April2010/AllocationOfRights/Draft%
20revised%20tuna%20pole%20policy%20May%202013.pdf
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Branch Fisheries Management (South Africa),
2013b. Tuna longline and tuna pole website contributions.
FAO/Globefish, 2012. Tuna commodity update.
Fisheries Management Agency, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (Maldives). Basic Fisheries
Statistics, 2012. Available at:
http://www.fishagri.gov.mv/images/download/basic_fisheries_statistics_2012.pdf
International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, 2012. A review of bycatch in the Indian Ocean gillnet
tuna fleet focussing on India and Sri Lanka. Available at: http://iss-foundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/ISSF-2012-05-IO-Gillnet-Bycatch.pdf
Macfadyen, G. and Allison, E., 2009. Climate Change, Fisheries, Trade and Competitiveness:
Understanding Impacts and Formulating Responses for Commonwealth Small States. Commonwealth
Secretariat.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2009. Fisheries Statistical Book. Available at:
http://www.maf.gov.om/Pages/PageCreator.aspx?lang=ENandI=0andCid=0andCMSId=800631andDid=
0
155 http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
Page 97
Oceanic Developpment, Megapesca, and Fundacion Universitaria de Las Palmas, 2012. Evaluation
des mesures prevues dans les region ultraperipheriques sous le Reg (CE) No. 791/2007
SmartFish, 2013. Fisheries trade in the Indian Ocean. Project report.
Sweenerain, S. and Hannomanjee, S., 2013. Market study on the bycatch from the tuna fishery in the
Indian Ocean.
WWF, 2012. Tuna situation analysis, Pakistan.
Other documents and sources of information used

Abreu-Grobois, A. and Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2008. Lepidochelys
olivacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at:
www.iucnredlist.org
ACAP, 2007. Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution and overlap with longline fishing effort within
the IOTC area: results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database. Paper submitted to the Third
Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, Victoria, Seychelles, 11-13 July 2007.
ACAP, 2010. Review of seabird bycatch mitigation measures for pelagic longline fishing operations.
Amande, M. J., Chassot, E., Chavance, P., Murua, H., Delgado de Molina, A. and Bez, N. 2012.
Precision in bycatch estimates: the case of tuna purse-seine fisheries in the Indian Ocean. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 69:1501-1510.
Amande, M.J., Ariz, J. and Chassot, E., 2008. Bycatch and discards of the European purse seine tuna
fishery in the Indian Ocean: Characteristics and estimation for the 2003-2007 period. Indian Ocean
Tuna Commission document, IOTC-2008-WPEB-12, 23pp.
Anderson, R.C., 2009 Opinions count: decline in abundance of silky sharks in the central Indian Ocean
reported by Maldivian fishermen. IOTC–2009–WPEB–08.
Ardill, D., Itano, D. and Gillet, R., 2013 A review of bycatch and discard issues in Indian Ocean tuna
fisheries. Indian Ocean Commission Report: SF/2013/32, 65pp.
Bach, P., Romanov, E., Rabearisoa, N., Sharp, A. and Lamoureux, J-P, 2012. Preliminary results of
bycatch ratio, catch rates and species CPUE distributions of bycatch of sharks in the pelagic longline
fishery based in Reunion Island.
Beal, L.M. and Donohue, K.A., 2013. The Great Whirl: Observations of its seasonal development and
interannual variability, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 118:1-13. Doi:10.1029/2012JC008198.
Bergh, P.E., 2012. Comprehensive Review of MCS Capacity in the ESA-IO Region, Indian Ocean
Commission, Report: SF/2012/14, 122pp.
Clarke, S., 2008. Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic
Ocean. Aquat Living Res 21:373-381.
Clarke, S.C., McAllister, M.K., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Michielsens, C.G.J., Agnew D.J.,
Pikitch, E.K., Nakano, H. and Shivji, M.S., 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records
from commercial markets. Ecol Lett 9:1115-1126.
Coelho, R., Lino, P.G., Santos, M.N., 2011. At-haulback mortality of elasmobranchs caught on the
Portuguese longline swordfish fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2011–WPEB07–31.
Coelho, R., Santos, M.N., Lino, P.G., 2012. Update of the standardized CPUE series for major shark
species caught by the Portuguese longline fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–29,
17pp.
Page 98
Delord, K. and Weimerskirch, H., 2009. New information on the distribution of southern seabirds and
their overlap with the IOTC zone. Paper presented to the fifth meeting of the IOTC WPEB, Mombasa,
Kenya 12-14 October 2009. IOTC–2009–WPEB07–13.
Delord, K. and Weimerskirch, H., 2010. New information on the distribution of southern seabirds and
their overlap with the IOTC zone seasonal changes in distribution and the importance of the non-
breeders and juveniles in assessing overlap between seabirds and longliners. Paper presented to the
sixth meeting of the IOTC WPEB, Victoria, Seychelles, 27-31 October 2010. IOTC–2010–WPEB04–14.
Dueri, S., Faugeras, B. and Maury, O., 2012. Modelling the skipjack tuna dynamics in the Indian Ocean
with APECOSM-E: Part 1. Model formulation. Ecological Modelling 245 (2012) 41-54.
Filmalter, J.D., Capello, M. Deneubourg, J-L, Cowley, P.D. and Dagorn, L., 2013. Looking behind the
curtain: quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Front Ecol Environ 2013;
11(6):291–296, doi:10.1890/130045.
Fonteneau, A., Lucas, V., Delgado A. and Demarcq, H., 2006. Meso-scale exploitation of a major tuna
concentration in the Indian Ocean. IOTC-2006-WPTT-24.
Gauffier, P., 2007. A review of the information on Bycatch in the Indian Ocean IOTC Secretariat. Paper
submitted to the third meeting of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, 11-13 July
2007, Victoria. IOTC–2007–WPEB–11.
Guillotreau, P., Campling, L. and Robinson, J., 2012. Vulnerability of small island fishery economies to
climate and institutional changes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:1-5.
Hiraoka, Y. and Yokawa, K., 2012. Update of CPUE of blue shark caught by Japanese longliner and
estimation of annual catch series in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–28, 16pp.
Holmes, B.H., Steinke, D. and Ward, R.D., 2009. Identification of shark and ray fins using DNA
barcoding. Fish Res 95:280-288.
Huang, H.W. and Liu, K.M., 2010. Bycatch and discards by Taiwanese large-scale tuna longline fleets
in the Indian Ocean, Fisheries Research, Volume 106, Issue 3, December 2010, Pages 261-270, ISSN
0165-7836. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.08.005
IOTC, 2009. Report of the Twelfth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2009-SC12-R. 156pp.
IOTC, 2011. Report of the Fourteenth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2011-SC14-R. 206pp.
IOTC, 2012. Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Scientific Committee. IOTC-2012-SC15-R. 212pp.
IOTC, 2013a. Report of the Eleventh Session of the Working Party on Billfish. IOTC-2013-WPB11-R.
85pp.
IOTC, 2013b. Report of the Fifteenth Session of the Working Party on Tropical Tunas. IOTC-2013-
WPTT15-R. 93pp.
IUCN, 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
John, M.E. and Varghese, B.C, 2009. Decline in CPUE of oceanic sharks in the Indian EEZ: urgent
need for precautionary approach. IOTC–2009–WPEB–17.
Kimoto, A., Hiraoka, Y., Ando, T. and Yokawa, K., 2011. Standardized CPUE of shortfin mako shark
(Isurus oxyrinchus) caught by Japanese longliners in the Indian Ocean in the period between 1994 and
2010. IOTC–2011–WPEB–34.
Longhurst, A. 1998. Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic Press, San Diego. 398 pp.
Page 99
Macfadyen, G., 2012. Sustainable shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania – assessment of
stakeholder interest in, and the potential benefits of, a WWF-supported shrimp blueprint adaptation
process in both Kenya and Tanzania. Poseidon/WWF report.
Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 1996. Caretta caretta. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
Marsac, F., 2008. Outlook of ocean climate variability in the west tropical Indian Ocean, 1997-2008.
IOTC-2008-WPTT-27.
Marsac, F., 2012. Outline of climate and oceanographic conditions in the Indian Ocean over the period
2002-2012. IOTC-2012-WPTT-09OPEN ACCESS.
Mejuto, J., García-Cortés, B. and Ramos-Cartelle, A., 2006. An overview of research activities on
swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and the by-catch species, caught by the Spanish longline fleet in the Indian
Ocean. IOTC 2006-WPB-11.
Mortimer, J.A. and Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2008. In: IUCN 2012.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Muths, D., Le Couls, S., Evano, H., Grewe, P. and Bourjea, J., 2013. Multi-genetic marker approach
and spatio-temporal analysis suggest there is a single panmictic population of swordfish Xiphias gladius
in the Indian Ocean. PloS ONE 8(5): e63558. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063558.
Palha de Sousa, B., 2011. Mozambique National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian
Ocean Tuna Commission. Instituto Nacional de Investigaçao Pesqueira. IOTC–2011–SC14–NR30.
Poisson, F. and Taquet, M., 2001. Programme palangre réunionnais, rapport final, 248pp. Available at:
www.ifremer.fr/drvreunion
Ramos-Cartelle, A., García-Cortés, B., Ortíz de Urbina, J., Fernández-Costa, J., González-González, I.
and Mejuto, J., 2012. Standardized catch rates of the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus
longimanus) from observations of the Spanish longline fishery targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean
during the 1998-2011 period. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–27, 15pp.
Red List Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 1996. Natator depressus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
Resplandy, L., Lévy, M., G. Madec, S., Pous, Aumont, O. and Kumar, D., 2011. Contribution of
mesoscale processes to nutrient budgets in the Arabian Sea, J. Geophys. Res. 116, C11007,
doi:10.1029/2011JC007006.
Romanov, E.V., 2002. Bycatch in the tuna purse-seine fisheries of the western Indian Ocean. Fish Bull
100:90-105.
Romanov, E.V., 2008. Bycatch and discards in the Soviet purse seine tuna fisheries on FAD-associated
schools in the north equatorial area of the Western Indian Ocean. Western Indian Ocean J Mar Sci
7:163-174
Sarti Martinez, A.L., (Marine Turtle Specialist Group), 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
Schewe, J. and Levermann, A., 2012. A statistically predictive model for future monsoon failure in India
Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044023 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044023.
Sea Around Us Project, 2013. Data on EEZ primary productivity downloaded from
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/ on 6 February 2013.
Seminoff, J.A., (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.), 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org
Page 100
Shahifar, R., 2011. Estimation of bycatch and discard in Iranian fishing vessels (gillnets) in the IOTC
area of competence during 2012. IOTC–2012–WPEB08–42.
Vialard, J., Duvel, J. P., Mcphaden, M. J., Bouruet-Aubertot, P., Ward, B., Key, E., Bourras, D., Weller,
R., Minnett, P., Weill, A., Cassou, C., Eymard, L., Fristedt, T., Basdevant, C., Dandonneau, Y., Duteil,
O., Izumo, T., de Boyer Montégut, C., Masson, S., Marsac, F., Menkes, C. and Kennan, S., 2009.
Supplement to Cirene: Air-Sea Interactions in the Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge Region.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90 (1). ES1-ES4. Doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2499.2.
Yokawa K., Semba Y., 2012. Update of the standardized CPUE of oceanic whitetip shark
(Carcharhinus longimanus) caught by Japanese longline fishery in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2012–
WPEB08–26, 5pp.
Documents related specifically to FPAs/Protocols and their evaluations, and other access
agreements
Breuil, C., and Snijman, P., 2012. IOC IRFS Programme Kenya case study and workshop on fisheries
licencing. Smartfish working papers, No. 27.
COFREPECHE, MRAG, NFDS et POSEIDON, 2013. Évaluation retrospective et prospective du
protocole de l’accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la pêche entre l’Union européenne et l’Union
des Comores, Contrat cadre MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, contrat spécifique n° 4, Bruxelles. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/comoros/index_en.htm
COFREPECHE, POSEIDON, MRAG et NFDS, 2013b. Revue des pêcheries thonières dans l’océan
Atlantique Est (Contrat cadre MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, contrat spécifique n° 5). Bruxelles.
Comores / ANABAC, 2009. Accord de peche entre le Ministere de l’Agriculture de la Peche et de
lEenvironment de l’Union des Comores, et l’Association Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros
Cogeladores (ANABAC) Espagne dans la zone economique exclusive des Comores. Available at:
http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/Accord%20ANABAC.pdf
Council of the European Union, 2012. Council conclusions on a Communication from the Commission
on the External dimension of the Common fisheries policy 3155th Agriculture and Fisheries Council
meeting. Brussels, 19 and 20 March 2012. Available at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf
European Parliament, 2012. Report on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy
(2011/2318(INI)). Committee on Fisheries. Rapporteur: Isabella Lövin. 27.09.2012. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORTandreference=A7-2012-
0290andlanguage=EN
European Parliament, 2013. Opinion of the Committee on Development for the Committee on Fisheries
for a comprehensive EU fishery strategy in the Pacific region (2012/2235(INI)). Rapporteur : Maurice
Ponga. 23.01.2013. Available at:
http ://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do ?type=COMPARLandreference=PE-
500.519andformat=PDFandlanguage=ENandsecondRef=02
NFDS, MRAG, COFREPECHE and POSEIDON, 2013. Ex post evaluation of the current Protocol to the
Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles and ex
ante evaluation including an analysis of the impacts of the future Protocol on sustainability (Framework
contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 4). Brussels. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/seychelles_2013/index_en.htm
Page 101
NFDS, POSEIDON, COFREPECHE and MRAG, 2014. Ex ante evaluation of a possible future fisheries
partnership agreement and protocol between the European Union and Tanzania (Framework contract
MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7).
Oceanic Developpement and Megapesca Lda, 2008. Specific contract No. 4 – Establishment of a
Framework Contract Management Unit (FCMU) to manage, monitor and coordinate the activities under
the framework management unit and the relevant specific agreements – Specific Methodological
Guidelines for Evaluation of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (under Framework Contract
FISH/2006/11).
Oceanic Développement, MegaPesca Lda 2011. ‘Contrat cadre pour la réalisation d'évaluations,
d'études d'impact et de suivi concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche (FPA)
conclus entre la Communauté européenne et les pays tiers, et plus généralement sur le volet externe
de la Politique Commune de la Pêche: ex-ante evaluation of existing conditions in the fisheries sector in
mauritius with a view to concluding a new fisheries partnership agreement and protocol.
Oceanic Developpement, Megapesca Lda and Poseidon, 2005. Study on the European tuna sector.
POSEIDON, MRAG, COFREPECHE and NFDS, 2013. Review of tuna fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
(Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 6). Brussels. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/tuna-fisheries-western-and-central-pacific_en.pdf
POSEIDON, MRAG, COFREPECHE and NFDS, 2014. Ex ante evaluation of a possible future fisheries
partnership agreement and protocol between the European Union and Kenya (Framework contract
MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 7).
Page 102
Annexes
Page 103
Annex A: Currency exchange rates used in this report

EUR exchange rate
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
(1 =)
USD 1.35 1.58 1.41 1.22 1.45 1.34 1.33
Pakistan rupee (PKR) 137
Omani riyal 0.51
South African Rand 13.64
(ZAR)
Rates at year mid-point (30 June)
Source: Inforeuro156
156 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm.
Page 104
Annex B: List of acronyms/abbreviations

ACAP Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific
ANABAC Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores
ASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Programme
AU African Union
B Biomass
BIOT British Indian Ocean Territory
CAMFA Conference of African Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture
CCS Catch Certificate Scheme
CEANI Coastal East Africa Network Initiative (of WWF)
CEPESCA Confederación Española de Pesca
CFP common fisheries policy
cm centimetre
COI Commission de l’Océan Indien
COMESA Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa
CPC Cooperating non-Contracting Party
CPUE catch per unit effort
DG MARE Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
DWFN distant water fishing nation
EAF ecosystem approach to fisheries
EBA Everything But Arms
EC European Commission
EEAS European External Action Service
EEZ exclusive economic zone
EIO east Indian Ocean
ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation
EPA Economic Partnership Agreement
ETP endangered, threatened or protected
EU European Union
EUR euro
F fishing mortality
FAD fish aggregation device
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FMSY fishing mortality rate that would give maximum sustainable yield
FPA Fisheries Partnership Agreement
GSP Generalised System Of Preferences
GT gross tonnes
i.e. id est in Latin meaning ‘that is’ in English
IEPA Interim Economic Partnership Agreement
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFREMER Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer
IMR Institute of Marine Resources (Bergen)
Page 105
IOC Indian Ocean Commission

IOSEA Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles
IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
IOTTP Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme
IRD Institut de Recherche pour le Développement
ISSF International Sustainability Seafood Foundation
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IUU illegal, unregulated or unreported
IWC International Whaling Commission
kg kilogramme(s)
kw kilowatt
LDC least developed country
m metre(s)
MCS monitoring, control and surveillance
MJO Madden-Julian Oscillation
MPA marine protected area
MSY maximum sustainable yield
N/A not applicable or not available
NEI not elsewhere identified
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NGO non-governmental organisation
nm nautical mile
OMR Omani rial
OPAGAC Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores
ORPAGU Organización Palangreros Guardeses
ORTHONGEL Organisation de Producteurs de Thon Congelé
PAF Partnership for African Fisheries
PKR Pakistani rupee
PRSP Plan Regional de Surveillance des Pêches dans le Sud-Ouest de l'Océan Indien
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
RTTP-IO Regional Tuna Tagging Project – Indian Ocean
SADC South African Development Community
SAP strategic action plan
SB spawning biomass
SCTR Seychelles-Chagos Thermocline Ridge
SIF Stop Illegal Fishing
SIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement
SWIO southwest Indian Ocean
SWIOFC Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission
SWIOFP South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project
t tonne(s)
TDA transboundary diagnostic analysis
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
Page 106
USD United States dollar

VMS vessel monitoring system(s)
WIO western Indian Ocean
WIO-LaB Western Indian Ocean Land Based Impacts on the Marine Environment (Project)
WIOMSA Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association
WIOTO Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organisation
WPEB Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch
WTO World Trade Organization
ZAR South African rand
Page 107
Annex C: Consulted organisations

The consultants are grateful to all stakeholders who shared their time, thoughts, information and data
with the consulting team that completed this specific contract.
A. Organisations consulted in the WIO
Organisation Department position
IOTC Executive Secretary
EU Delegation in Mauritius Fisheries attaché, in Mauritius
IOC/COI in Mauritius Fisheries staff
Indian Ocean Tuna Operators Association Secretariat
Indian Ocean Tuna cannery, Seychelles Managing Director
SmartFish project Team Leader, MCS, socio-economic and trade experts
Fisheries Development Board, Pakistan Company Secretary
Fisheries Management Agency, Maldives Director
Marine Science and Fisheries Centre, Oman Licence and marketing departments
Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources
Fisheries staff
Halieutiques, Madagascar
Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques,
Head of institution
Comoros
Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and
Fisheries Division
Security, Mauritius
Seychelles Fishing Authority Secretariat
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries Management and Resources Research divisions
Fisheries, South Africa
Sea and Coastal Inter-ministerial Actions Service,
under the Sea Direction for the Indian Ocean, Deputy Director
Reunion
Administração Nacional das Pescas,
Fisheries Advisor
Mozambique
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman Department of Marine Science and Fisheries
Task Team Leader for South West Indian Ocean fisheries
World Bank
projects
WWF, Pakistan Fisheries officer
Various in both Kenya and Tanzania as listed in the Kenya ex ante evaluation reports
Page 108
B. People consulted in Europe
Organisation Department position
European Commission DG MARE F.2. Evaluation and impact assessment

coordination
DG MARE B.3
-
Desk officer Seychelles, coordinator for Indian
Ocean
- Desk officer Kenya
DG MARE.B.1 Desk officer for IOTC
DG MARE D.4 Fishing authorisation and catch data
officer
DG MARE B.2 Trade, Indian Ocean EPAs
DG DEVCO Horn of Africa Unit, desk officer for
Seychelles
EEAS II A1, Aid cooperation East Africa
Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation, de Bureau des affaires internationales et européennes,
la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement Affaires européennes, Chargé de Missions
du territoire (MAAP), Direction des Pêches
Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture (DPMA), Sous-
direction des Ressources Halieutiques,
France
SG Acuerdos y Organizaciones Regionales SG Adjunta de Acuerdos y ORPs
de Pesca. DG Recursos Pesqueros y Head and Deputy Head of Unit unit for fisheries
Acuicultura. Secretaría General de Pesca. agreements and RFMOs
Spain
Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura. Chefe de Divisão de Recursos Externos
Portugal Técnico Superior
Marine Scotland Head of Sea Fisheries Operations
CEPESCA (Professional organisation), Spain Secretaria General Adjunta
OPAGAC (Professional organisation), Spain Director Gerente
ANABAC (Professional organisation), Spain Directeur and Assistant Manager
Asociacion Armadores Buques De Pesca De Director – Gerente
Marin (Professional organisation), Spain
Organización Palangreros Guardeses Dirección
(Professional organisation), Spain
Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Dirección
Buques Palangreros de Altura (Professional
organisation), Spain
Page 109
Individual Portuguese longline vessel owners

ORTHONGEL (Professional organisation), Directeur
France
Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the Fish marketing division / Globefish
United Nations
Page 110
Annex D: Information on States and their Competent Authorities notified under Article 20(1) and
(2) of the EU IUU Regulation (as of 18 March 2013)
The table below provides information on third countries in the WIO, and DWFNs that have had vessels
active in the WIO in recent years, having already notified their competent authorities to the Commission
in accordance with Article 20(1) and (2) of the IUU Regulation. This information includes the names of
the authorities notified in accordance with Annex III of the IUU Regulation, which are competent for:
1/ The registration of fishing vessels under the flag of the Flag State;
2/ Granting, suspending and withdrawing licences to the fishing vessels of the Flag State;
3/ Attesting the veracity of the information provided in the catch certificates referred to in Article 12 and
for validating such catch certificates;
4/ The control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures that
must be complied with by fishing vessels;
5/ The verifications of catch certificates to assist the competent authorities of Member States through
the administrative cooperation referred to in Article 20(4);
6/ The communication of a sample form of the catch certificate in accordance with the specimen in
Annex II; and
7/ Updating the notifications.
WIO country
Comoros Not notified
Eritrea Points 1 and 6: Ministry of Fisheries. Point 2: Fisheries Resource Regulatory
Department. Point 3: Fish Quality Inspection Division. Point 4: Monitoring Controlling
and Surveillance, Ministry of Fisheries. Point 5: Liaison Division, Ministry of Fisheries.
Point 7: Government of the State of Eritrea.
India Points 1 and 2: Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Director General of
Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Department of Fisheries of State (Provincial)
Governments of West Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Maharastra, and Tamil Nadu. Points 3 and 5: Marine Products Exports Development
Authority. Point 4: Director General of Shipping, Marine Products Exports
Development Authority, Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries of the State
Governments. Point 6: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Point 7: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture.
Iran Not notified
Kenya Point 1: Kenya Maritime Authority. Points 2 to 7: Ministry of Fisheries Development.
Madagascar Point 1: Agence Portuaire Maritime et Fluviale, Service Régional de Pêche et des
Ressources halieutiques de Diana, Sava, Sofia, Boeny Melaky, Analanjirofo,
Atsinanana, Atsimo Atsinanana, Vatovavy Fitovinany, Menabe, Atsimo Andrefana,
Anosy, and Androy. Point 2: Ministère chargé de la Pêche. Points 3 and 4: Centre de
Surveillance des Pêches. Points 5, 6, 7: Direction Générale de la Pêche et des
Ressources Halieutiques.
Maldives Point 1: Ministry of Housing, Transport and Environment. Point 2: Ministry of Fisheries
and Agriculture (MOFA) and Ministry of Economic Development. Points 3, 5, 6, 7:
Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture (MOFA). Point 4: Coast Guard, Maldives National
Defense Force and Maldives Police Service.
Mauritius Points 1 to 7: Ministry of Fisheries.
Mayotte Points 1, 2, 5, 7: Monsieur le Préfet de Mayotte. Point 3: Le Centre National de
Surveillance des Pêches (CNSP). Point 4: Monsieur le Préfet de la Réunion.
Mozambique Point 1: National Marine Institute (INAMAR). Points 2 to 7: National Directorate of
Page 111
Fisheries Administration.
Oman Points 1, 2, 5 and 7: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General
of Fisheries Development, Department of Surveillance and Fisheries Licensing. Points
3, 4 and 6: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General of
Fisheries Development, Department of Surveillance and Fisheries Licensing; and
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth, Directorate General of Fisheries Dhofar
Region, Department of Fisheries Affairs.
Pakistan Point 1: Mercantile Marine Department. Points 2 and 4: Marine Fisheries Department /
Directorate of Fisheries of Balochistan / Directorate of Fisheries of Sindh. Points 3, 5,
6: Marine Fisheries Department. Point 7: Ministry of Livestock and Dairy
Development.
Seychelles Point 1: Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration. Point 2: Seychelles Licensing
Authority. Points 3 to 7: Seychelles Fishing Authority.
Somalia Not notified
South Africa Points 1 to 7: Branch: Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries.
Tanzania Points 1 to 7: Director of Fisheries Development
Yemen Point 1 Maritime Affairs Authority – Ministry of Transport. Points 2 to 7: Ministry of
Fish Wealth and its branches from Aden, Alhodeidah, Hadramout, Almahara.
DWFN active in WIO
Belize Point 1: IMMARBE. Points 2 to 7: Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Forestry,
Fisheries and Sustainable Development.
China Points 1 to 7: Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture.
Equatorial Guinea Not notified
Honduras Not notified
Japan See source of information for complete details.
Korea Points 1, 2, 4, 6, 7: Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Points 3 and
5: Animal, Plant and Fisheries Quarantine Inspection Agency and its 17 regional or
district offices.
Panama Point 1: Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá - Autoridad Marítima de
Panamá. Points 2 to 7: Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá.
Philippines Point 1: Maritime Industry Authority. Points 2 to 7: Bureau for Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, Department of Agriculture.
Taiwan Point 1: Council of Agriculture. Points 2 to 7: Fisheries Agency.
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info/flag_state_notifications.pdf (accessed 10 September 2013)
Page 112
Annex E: Overview of key tuna processing plants in the WIO region

Country Company Overview Production and Employment
Kenya Kenya-Wanachi Marine Products Ltd. Annual raw material production capacity
Processing agreement to supply Tri Marine 20 000 t for yellowfin loins. Direct employment:
(a tuna trading company). unknown.
Other licensed industries processing tuna N/A
loins for export include Shimko, Trans Africa
and Sea Harvest.
Iran N/A N/A
Madagascar Conserverie des Cinq Océans (CCO) (former Annual raw material production capacity
Pêche et Froid Océan Indien). 36 000 t for canned and pouch157 skipjack/
yellowfin.
Direct employment: 1 200-1 600.
Maldives Felivaru and Maandhoo tuna canneries. Direct employment: N/A
Several yellowfin tuna loining factories.
Home-based processing of Maldive Fish.
Mauritius Princes Tuna (Mauritius) Ltd (PTM). 58/59 % Annual raw material production capacity
share bought by Princes Ltd (UK) in 1999, 50 000 t for canned skipjack.
which is a subsidiary of Mitsubishi
Direct employment: 1 950
Corporation/ 35 % Ireland Blyth Ltd (IBL,
Mauritius)/6-7 % State Investment
Corporation (Mauritius). Formerly known as
the Mauritius Tuna Fishing Canning
Enterprise, the first cannery was established
in 1971/2.
Thon des Mascareignes (est. 2005). Owned Annual raw material production capacity
75 % IBL / 25 % Pesqueras Echebastar 55 000 t for albacore, skipjack and yellowfin
(Spain). loins (90 %) cans and pouch.
Direct employment: 750
Mer des Mascareignes (IBL/SAPMER) (est. Frozen fish processing plant with an annual
2008). production capacity of 9000 tonnes
Tuna Processing Services Indian Ocean Frozen fish processing plant with an annual
(est. 2013) (SAPMER). capacity of 21 000 tonnes
Dhofar Fisheries and Food Industries Co Fishmeal is produced from residues and lower
SAOG. Tuna and sardine canning. grade fish purchased locally. Its main products
are canned tuna and sardines, tuna loins, frozen
Oman tuna and sardines, fish meal and fish oil. The
Company’s products are marketed under the
brand names Blue Ocean and Taibat Oman
tuna.
157 Tuna packed in aluminium foil pouches.
Page 113
Seychelles Indian Ocean Tuna Ltd (IOT) (est. 1995) Annual raw material production capacity
owned 60 % Lehman Brothers until > 100 000 t for canned skipjack/yellowfin and
2011/40 % government of Seychelles, some loins.
managed by MW Brands (taken over by Thai
Direct employment: 2,600
Union in 2011). Previously owned by Heinz
European Seafood until 2006.
Yemen Three canneries (including Mukalla Ghawizi Direct employment: N/A
Fish Canning Factory), and loining.
Source: Campling et al., 2007, http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/yemen-39-s-tuna-canneries-in-danger-of-collapse-
1.965524, http://www.alacrastore.com/company-snapshot/Dhofar_Fisheries_Food_Industries_Company_S_A_O_G-
2510606, http://transparentsea.co/index.php?title=Kenya:Offshore_fisheries#cite_ref-1.
Page 114
Annex F: Information on fisheries research institutions in the WIO

WIO Country Name of primary research institutions
Comoros Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques
Eritrea Ministry of Fisheries
National Fisheries Corporation
India Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, and federal level
research institutes
Fishery Survey of India
Iran Iran Fisheries Research Organisation (IFRO)
Kenya Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI)
Madagascar Ministère de la Pêche et de Ressources Halieutiques
Institut Halieutique et des Sciences Marines (IHSM)
Maldives Fisheries Management Agency
Marine Research Centre (MRC)
Mauritius Ministry of Agro Industry, Food Production and Security
(Fisheries Division)
Albion Fisheries Research Centre (AFRC)
Rodrigues Fisheries Research Centre (RFRC)
Mayotte and Réunion Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer

(IFREMER)
Institut de Recherche pour le Developpment (IRD)
Mozambique Instituto Nacional de Investigação Pesqueira (IIP)
Oman Marine Sciences and Fisheries Centre
Pakistan Pakistan Agricultural Research Council
Institute of Marine Research
Institute of Marine Science
Seychelles Seychelles Fishing Authority
Somalia Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
South Africa Oceanagraphic Research Institute(ORI)
South-African Institute for Biodiversity (SAIAB)
Tanzania Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TaFIRI)
Institute of Marine Science (in Zanzibar)
Yemen Marine Science and Resources Centre
Ministry of Fish Wealth
Note that many universities and Ministries/Fisheries Departments in the WIO also conduct fisheries research
Page 115
Annex G: IOTC Members, and species under the management mandate of the IOTC
Management arrangements and mechanisms
In addition to being full Members, States that have a stake in tuna fisheries can participate as
Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, with the same obligations as Members, but with no requirements
for financial contributions and with no voting rights. Current Membership includes 32 Members and two
Cooperating non-Contracting Parties (see later in this Annex).
Proposals for conservations and management measures can be tabled by Members, often responding
to advice from the Scientific Committee. The proposals are then debated and modified, as necessary,
during the sessions of the Commission. Measures binding on Members of the Commission
(Resolutions) must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting. Individual
members objecting to a decision are not bound by it. If objections to a measure are made by more than
one-third of the Members of the Commission, the other Members are not bound by that measure; but
this does not preclude any or all of them from giving effect. Non-binding measures concerning
conservation and management of the stocks (Recommendations) need only be adopted by a simple
majority of its Members present and voting.
The workings of the IOTC, inputs to decision-making, and all outputs are open to scrutiny and review. A
potential issue of concern, however, is that countries can opt out of Resolutions, although few countries
have objected to approved Resolutions. On the other hand, consensus is not necessary to adopt
measures.
By virtue of its link to FAO and, therefore, to the UN system, Taiwan is only recognised as a province of
the People’s Republic of China and, as such, is not allowed to participate as a full member of a
Cooperating non-Contracting Party. However, Taiwan is actively involved with IOTC.
The first meeting of IOTC took place in November 1996, and the first meetings concentrated on
completing the basic texts that would govern the organisation. Substantive measures towards
constructing a body of regional measures were taken in the years following the formulation of an
Inspection and Control Scheme in 2001. This Scheme enunciated a number of principles that the IOTC
Members had agreed to embrace, and in subsequent years the Commission adopted resolutions
implementing these principles. For example, the establishment of a Record for Authorised Vessels (a
closed registry for participating countries only) and the IUU List (including a definition of what
constitutes IUU activities) were setup in 2002, Records of Active Vessels and Licensed Vessels that
had been adopted in 1998 have been refined in later years.
Measures on the data to be submitted on catches and fishing activities, including guidelines for the
collection, and deadlines on the submission were first adopted in 1998, and continue to be updated
periodically, with additional data reporting requirements. An important addition has been the adoption in
2010 of a Regional Observer Scheme, a nationally implemented programme to estimate catches of all
species caught by tuna fisheries, which requires a minimum coverage of 5 % for large-scale vessels
and similar coverage of port sampling for small-scale and artisanal fisheries. As implementation
depends on separate programmes being implemented at national level, there has been an unequal
level of implementation between the different flag States depending on their resources. Also, some flag
States have argued that the piracy threat and the need to have armed personnel on board means that
there was no room for scientific observers.
Few specific conservation measures were required to address concerns about stock status, as the
condition of the stocks under IOTC mandate continues to be good in general. In 1998 the Scientific
Committee had raised concerns about the high catches of juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tunas, but there
was no agreement on a proposed moratorium. Resolutions 99/01, 01/04, 01/06, 02/08, and 05/01
represent the measures adopted for bigeye tuna (including a limit on the catches from the Taiwanese
Page 116
fleet). Concerns about the stock status of yellowfin tuna were the origin of a proposal for the adoption of
a catch limit for the species, but the disadvantages of implementing an unallocated quota meant that a
time-area closure for both purse seine and longline fisheries was instead adopted (the Scientific
Committee advised that the effect of the closure was probably negligible in 2012). The same resolution
initiated the work of the IOTC Members towards either a mechanism for quota allocation or alternative
management measures for the future. In 2013, there was a proposal to encourage catches of albacore
to be reduced in response to the reports of fishing mortality being close to the limit reference point, but
no agreement was reached.
The following is a list of the resolutions and recommendations adopted by the IOTC that are currently
active. Many of the principles contained in these resolutions had been adopted in earlier years and the
current resolutions represent updates and modifications to their contents, and that supersede the
previous versions. A file containing the text of all the active resolutions is available on the IOTC website
(http://www.iotc.org/files/CMM/IOTC%20-
%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2015%20September%202013.pdf)
Res/Rec number Title

Resolution 13/01 On the removal of obsolete Conservation and Management Measures
Resolution 13/02 Concerning the IOTC record of vessels authorised to operate in the IOTC area of
competence
Resolution 13/03 On the recording of catch and effort data by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of
competence
Resolution 13/04 On the conservation of cetaceans
Resolution 13/05 On the conservation of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus)
Resolution 13/06 On a scientific and management framework on the conservation of shark species caught in
association with IOTC managed fisheries
Resolution 13/07 Concerning a record of licensed foreign vessels fishing for IOTC species in the IOTC area
of competence and access agreement information
Resolution 13/08 Procedures on a fish aggregating devices (FADs) management plan, including more
detailed specifications of catch reporting from fad sets, and the development of improved
FAD designs to reduce the incidence of entanglement of non-target species
Resolution 13/09 On the conservation of albacore caught in the IOTC area of competence
Resolution 13/10 On interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework
Resolution 13/11 On a ban on discards of bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, and a recommendation
for non-targeted species caught by purse seine vessels in the IOTC area of competence
Resolution 12/01 On the implementation of the precautionary approach

Resolution 12/02 Data confidentiality policy and procedures
Resolution 12/04 On the conservation of marine turtles
Resolution 12/05 On establishing a programme for transshipment by large-scale fishing vessels
Resolution 12/06 On reducing the incidental bycatch of seabirds in longline fisheries
Resolution 12/09 On the conservation of thresher sharks (Family Alopiidae) caught in association with
fisheries in the IOTC area of competence
Resolution 12/10 To promote implementation of Conservation and Management Measures already adopted
by IOTC
Resolution 12/11 On The Implementation Of A Limitation Of Fishing Capacity Of Contracting Parties And
Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties
Resolution 12/12 To prohibit the use of large-scale driftnets on the high seas in the IOTC area
Resolution 12/13 For the conservation and management of tropical tunas stocks in the IOTC area of
competence
Page 117
Recommendation On the best available science

12/15
Resolution 11/01 Regarding consolidation of IOTC Resolutions and Recommendations
Resolution 11/02 On the prohibition of fishing on data buoys
Resolution 11/03 On establishing a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing in the IOTC area of competence
Resolution 11/04 On a regional observer scheme
Resolution 10/02 Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting
Parties (CPCs)
Resolution 10/05 On the establishment of a meeting participation fund for developing IOTC Members and
Non-Contracting Cooperating Parties (CPCs)
Resolution 10/06 On reducing the incidental bycatch of seabirds in longline fisheries
Resolution 10/08 Concerning a record of active vessels fishing for tunas and swordfish in the IOTC area
Resolution 10/09 Concerning the functions of the Compliance Committee

Resolution 10/10 Concerning market related measures
Resolution 10/11 On port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing
Recommendation On the implementation of a ban on discards of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna
10/13 and non targeted species caught by purse seiners
Resolution 09/01 On the performance review follow-up
Resolution 07/01 To promote compliance by nationals of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-
Contracting Parties with IOTC Conservation and Management Measures
Resolution 06/03 On establishing a vessel monitoring system programme

Resolution 05/01 On Conservation and Management Measures for bigeye tuna
Resolution 05/03 Relating to the establishment of an IOTC programme of inspection in port
Resolution 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by
IOTC
Recommendation Concerning a management standard for the tuna fishing vessels
05/07
Recommendation On incidental mortality of seabirds
05/09
Resolution 03/01 On the limitation of fishing capacity of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-
Contracting Parties
Resolution 03/02 On criteria for attaining the status of Co-Operating Non-Contracting Party
Resolution 03/03 Concerning the amendment of the forms of the IOTC statistical documents
Resolution 03/07 Recognising the contributions of David Ardill
Recommendation Concerning measures to prevent the laundering of catches by IUU large-scale tuna longline
02/07 fishing vessels
Resolution 02/08 On the conservation of bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean
Resolution 02/09 Establishment of the Standing Committee on Administration and Finance (SCAF)
Resolution 01/03 Establishing a scheme to promote compliance by Non-Contracting Party vessels with
Resolutions established by IOTC
Resolution 01/04 On limitation of fishing effort of Non Members of IOTC whose vessels fish bigeye tuna
Resolution 01/06 Concerning the IOTC bigeye tuna statistical document programme
Resolution 01/07 Concerning the support of the IPOA-IUU plan
Resolution 00/01 On compliance with mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and requesting
cooperation with Non-Contracting Parties
Page 118
Resolution 00/02 On a survey of predation of longline caught fish

Resolution 99/01 On the management of fishing capacity and on the reduction of the catch of juvenile bigeye
tuna by vessels, including flag of convenience vessels, fishing for tropical tunas in the IOTC
area of competence
Resolution 99/02 Calling for actions against fishing activities by large scale flag of convenience longline
vessels
Resolution 99/03 On the elaboration of a control and inspection scheme for IOTC
Resolution 98/03 On Southern Bluefin Tuna
Resolution 98/05 On Cooperation with Non-Contracting Parties
The Compliance Committee

The Compliance Committee reviews proposals for listing of vessels in the IOTC IUU List, as well as
other possible infractions to IOTC measures. The Compliance Committee also advises the Commission
on any requests by non-Member States to become Cooperating non-Contracting Parties.
The current process of evaluating and acting on the level of compliance is an evolving process.
Important decisions, such as the listing of a vessel in the IUU list, are done without the benefit of clear
guidelines as to what constitute due process, and are, therefore, often political in nature.
There is no standardised scheme of sanctions and there is no unified view as to what would constitute
adequate sanctions for certain infractions. At times, vessels have been proposed for inclusion in the
IUU lists even after paying fines imposed by the flag State, without a clear indication of how, in the
future they would be removed from the List.
There are still many misconceptions on the part of many Members as to what is expected of them once
a Resolution is adopted, and that means that often decisions are not transposed into the domestic
legislation, and/or no domestic mechanisms are implemented to ensure compliance. Capacity building
is required to improve an understanding of the process.
Most of the alleged infractions noted in recent IOTC sessions are more related to the inability of the flag
State to exercise proper control over its vessels, than to clear intent by a vessel of conducting an IUU
operation. For example, there have been several incidents involving the Sri Lanka semi-industrial
vessels that are not fitted with the mandatory VMS system. The uneven supply of data about the
species caught and the operations of the fleet have also been highlighted as a serious concern,
particularly for those species that have significant catches taken by artisanal or small-scale fisheries.
Finally, it is noted that the Compliance Committee has also recently discussed cases involving EU
vessels as there have been discrepancies between the coordinates specified for fishing zones in FPAs,
and the coordinates used by coastal States to define EEZs.
Research mechanisms within IOTC

The Scientific Committee, a formal body structured around member delegations, receives the reports of
the Working Parties at its Annual Session, reviews their recommendations and, finally casts its advice
to the Commission on the status of the stocks and any action that might be necessary, including
ecosystem considerations. The Scientific Committee also advises its members on strategic needs in
regional research, as required, to improve its ability to assess the status of the resource.
The IOTC Secretariat contributes to the scientific process by coordinating the process, collating the
information supplied by the fishing countries, assisting in the analyses and producing stock status
determinations when necessary. The Secretariat has been responsible in recent years for the execution
of some large projects such as data collection efforts with support from Japan, and the large-scale
tuna-tagging experiments of the mid-2000s.
Page 119
Most of the research concerning tuna and tuna-like species, in particular that related to the evaluation
of the stocks, originates in the national institutions from DWFN. Regional institutions have a limited
research capacity and this is evident in the distribution of documents contributed by IOTC Member
States. Countries in the region have typically only been able to conduct more research when external
funding and structures have been provided.
Some of the small-scale tagging projects that were part of the Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme
in the region have been executed by national institutions with support from staff from the Secretariat, in
India, Maldives, Mayotte and Seychelles.
Members of the IOTC are as follows
Member Date of accession

Australia 13 November 1996
Belize 01 May 2007
China 14 October 1998
Comoros 14 August 2001
Eritrea 09 August 1994
European Community 27 October 1995
France 03 December 1996
Guinea 31 January 2005
India 13 March 1995
Indonesia 09 July 2007
Iran, Islamic Republic of 28 January 2002
Japan 26 June 1996
Kenya 29 September 2004
Korea, Republic of 27 March 1996
Madagascar 10 January 1996
Malaysia 22 May 1998
Maldives 13 July 2011
Mauritius 27 December 1994
Mozambique 13 February 2012
Oman, Sultanate of 05 April 2000
Pakistan 27 April 1995
Philippines 09 January 2004
Seychelles 26 July 1995
Sierra Leone 01 July 2008
Sri Lanka 13 June 1994
Sudan 03 December 1996
Tanzania 18 April 2007
Thailand 17 March 1997
United Kingdom 31 March 1995
Vanuatu 25 October 2002
Yemen 20 July 2012
Source: IOTC website (www.iotc.org)
Page 120
In addition, Senegal and South Africa participate as Cooperating non-Contracting Parties.
Species mandated
The species listed below are under the management mandate of IOTC. In addition, the Commission
has instructed the Secretariat to collate data on non-target, associated and dependent species affected
by tuna fishing operations.
FAO English name FAO French name Scientific name
Yellowfin tuna Albacore Thunnus albacares
Skipjack tuna Listao; Bonite à ventre rayé Katsuwonus pelamis
Bigeye tuna Patudo; Thon obèse Thunnus obesus
Albacore tuna Germon Thunnus alalunga
Southern bluefin tuna Thon rouge du sud Thunnus maccoyii
Longtail tuna Thon mignon Thunnus tonggol
Kawakawa Thonine orientale Euthynnus affinis
Frigate tuna Auxide Auxis thazard
Bullet tuna Bonitou Auxis rochei
Narrow barred Spanish mackerel Thazard rayé Scomberomorus commersoni
Indo-Pacific king mackerel Thazard ponctué Scomberomorus guttatus
Blue marlin Makaire bleu Makaira nigricans
Black marlin Makaire noir Makaira indica
Striped marlin Marlin rayé Tetrapturus audax
Indo-Pacific sailfish Voilier de l’Indo-Pacifique Istiophorus platypterus
Swordfish Espadon Xiphias gladius
Source: IOTC website (www.iotc.org)
Page 121
Annex H: Projects in the WIO funded by the ACP FISH II Programme

Project Beneficiary country Status Budget Implementation
(EUR) period
Preparation of a Fisheries Policy for Sudan Finished 134 300 25/06/12-15/03/13
Sudan
Regional Training on Co-Management Burundi, Ethiopia, Finished 142 500 26/01/11-26/05/11
Kenya, Rwanda,
Sudan, Tanzania,
Uganda
Regional Training on Commercial Burundi, Ethiopia, Implementation 103 090 7/13-11/13
Aquaculture Management and Kenya, Rwanda,
Development South Sudan,
Tanzania, Uganda
Review and Update the Legal Djibouti Implementation 98 780 30/10/2012-
Framework Governing Fisheries in 30/09/2013
The Republic of Djibouti
Support to Eastern Africa Industrial REGIONAL (Kenya, Finished 9 990 10/2012-02/2013
Fish and Fish Processors Association Tanzania, Uganda)
(Eaiffpa) In Reducing Regional Trade
in Undersized and Illegally Caught
Fish
Support to Legislative Development In Tanzania, Kenya Finished 190 000 12/2010-05/2011
Tanzania and Preparation of a Draft
Aquaculture Policy in Kenya
Technical Support to the Fisheries Eritrea Implementation 113 192 5/2013-10/2013
Administration in Eritrea to Review
and update the Fisheries Proclamation
104/1998
Analytical Review of Private Sector EAC, Kenya, Implementation 126 972 04/2013-08/2013
Involvement in Aquaculture in EAC Tanzania, Uganda,
Partner States, with Rwanda, Burundi
Recommendations for Future Areas of
Growth and Support
Strengthening Implementation of the Mauritius, Finished 195 000 4 months.
IOTC Port State Measures Resolution Mozambique, 31/01/11-31/05/11
through Assessment and Training in Seychelles,
Five Countries Tanzania, Kenya
Action Planning for Improved Regional Uganda, Sudan, Finished 103 500 4 months.
Fish Trade for Sustainable Fisheries Kenya, Rwanda, 26/01/11-
Management Democratic Republic 26/05/2011
Of The Congo
Elaboration of a Manual on Regional Djibouti, Eritrea, Implementation 105 852 6 months.
Best Practices for Evidence Gathering Kenya, Somalia, 27/05/2013-
and Delivery of Training to MCS Sudan, Tanzania. 27/11/2013.
Practitioners
Support to Djibouti’s Fisheries Djibouti Implementation 83 158 5 months.
Administration for Stock Assessment 28/06/2013-
Page 122
Project Beneficiary country Status Budget Implementation

(EUR) period
28/11/2013
Training on Socio-Economic South Sudan Implementation 86 980 4 months.
Monitoring, Analysis in Fisheries in 02/07/2013-
South Sudan 02/10/2013
Development of an Online Database REGIONAL (IOTC Finished 45,000 3 months.
for the IOTC Conservation And Secretariat) 06/2012-09/2012
Management Measures
Source: ACP FISH II
Page 123
Annex I: Selected Articles from the Basic Regulation on the CFP. Council of the European
Union. Brussels, 10 October 2013
Introductory text
(50) The Union should promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally, ensuring
that Union fishing activities outside Union waters are based on the same principles and standards as
applicable Union law, and promoting a level playing field for EU operators and third-country operators.
To this end, the Union should seek to lead the process of strengthening the performance of regional
and international organisations to better enable them to conserve and manage marine living resources
under their purview, including combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Union
should cooperate with third countries and international organisations for the purpose of improving
compliance with international measures, including combating IUU. The positions of the Union should be
based on the best available scientific advice.
(51) Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries should ensure that Union fishing
activities in third country waters are based on the best available scientific advice and relevant
information exchange, ensuring a sustainable exploitation of the marine biological resources,
transparency as regards the determination of the surplus and, consequently, a management of the
resources that is consistent with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. Those agreements,
which provide for access to resources commensurate with the Union fleet's interests in exchange for a
financial contribution from the Union, should contribute to the establishment of a high quality
governance framework to ensure in particular efficient data collection, monitoring, control and
surveillance measures.
(52) Respect for democratic principles and human rights, as laid down in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments, and for the principle of the
rule of law, should constitute an essential element of sustainable fisheries partnership agreements and
be subject to a specific human rights clause. The introduction of a human rights clause in sustainable
fisheries partnership agreements should be fully consistent with the overall Union development policy
objectives.
Definitions (Article 4)
(33) 'surplus of allowable catch' means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not
harvest, resulting in an overall exploitation rate for individual stocks that remains below levels at which
stocks are capable of restoring themselves and maintaining populations of harvested species above
desired levels based on the best available scientific advice;
(37) 'sustainable fisheries partnership agreements' mean international agreements concluded with
another state for the purpose of obtaining access to waters and resources in order to sustainably
exploit a share of the surplus of marine biological resources, in exchange for financial compensation
from the Union which may include sectoral support;
PART VI. EXTERNAL POLICY. Article 28
Objectives
1. To ensure sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of marine biological resources
and the marine environment, the Union shall conduct its external fisheries relations in accordance with
international obligations and policy objectives, the objectives and principles set out in Articles 2 and 3.
2. In particular the Union shall:
(a) actively support and contribute to the development of scientific knowledge and advice;
Page 124
(b) improve policy coherence of Union initiatives, with particular regard to environmental, trade and
development activities and strengthen consistency of actions taken in the context of development
cooperation and scientific, technical and economic cooperation;
(c) contribute to sustainable fishing activities that are economically viable and promote employment
within the Union;
(d) ensure that Union fishing activities outside Union waters are based on the same principles and
standards as applicable Union legislation in the area of the Common Fisheries Policy while promoting a
level playing field for EU operators vis-à-vis other third-country operators;
(e) promote and support, in all international spheres, action necessary to eradicate IUU fishing;
(f) promote the establishment and strengthening of RFMO compliance committees, periodical
independent performance reviews and appropriate remedial actions, including dissuasive and effective
penalties, which need to be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory fashion.
TITLE II. SUSTAINABLEFISHERIESPARTNERSHIPAGREEMENTS.

Article 31. Principles and objectives of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements
1. Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries shall establish a legal,
environmental, economic and social governance framework for fishing activities carried out by
Union fishing vessels in third country waters.
Such frameworks may include:
(a) development and support for the necessary scientific and research institutions;
(b) monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities;
(c) other capacity building elements concerning the development of a sustainable fisheries policy of the
third country.
2. For the purpose of ensuring the sustainable exploitation of surpluses of marine biological resources,
the Union shall endeavour to ensure that the Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third
countries are of mutual benefit to the Union and to the third country concerned, including its local
population and fishing industry and that they contribute to continuing the activity of Union fleets and
seek to obtain an appropriate share of the available surplus, commensurate with the Union fleets'
interest.
3. For the purpose of ensuring that Union vessels fishing under Sustainable fisheries partnership
agreements operate, where appropriate, under similar standards to those applicable to Union fishing
vessels fishing in Union waters, the Union shall endeavour to include in Sustainable fisheries
partnership agreements appropriate provisions on obligations to land fish and fishery products.
4. Union fishing vessels shall only catch surplus of the allowable catch as referred to in Article 62(2)
and (3) of the UNCLOS, and identified, in a clear and transparent manner, on the basis of the best
available scientific advice and of the relevant information exchanged between the Union and the third
country about the total fishing effort on the affected stocks by all fleets. Concerning straddling or highly
migratory fish stocks, the determination of the resources available for access should take due account
of scientific assessments conducted at the regional level as well as conservation and management
measures adopted by relevant RFMOs.
5. Union fishing vessels shall not operate in the waters of the third country with which a Sustainable
fisheries partnership agreement is in force unless they are in possession of a fishing authorisation
which has been issued in accordance with that agreement.
Page 125
6. The Union shall ensure that Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements include a clause
concerning respect for democratic principles and human rights, which constitutes an essential element
of such agreements.
Those agreements shall also, to the extent possible, include:
(a) a clause prohibiting the granting of more favourable conditions to other fleets fishing in those waters
than those granted to Union economic actors, including conditions concerning the conservation,
development and management of resources, financial arrangements, and fees and rights relating to the
issuing of fishing authorisations;
(b) an exclusivity clause relating to the rule provided for in paragraph 5.
7. Efforts shall be made at Union level to monitor the activities of Union fishing vessels that operate in
non–Union waters outside the framework of Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements.
8. Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag and operating outside Union
waters are in a position to provide detailed and accurate documentation of all fishing and processing
activities.
9. A fishing authorisation, as referred to in paragraph 5, shall be granted to a vessel which has left the
Union fishing fleet register and which has subsequently returned to it within 24 months, only if the
owner of that vessel has provided to the competent authorities of the flag Member State all data
required to establish that, during that period, the vessel was operating in a manner fully consistent with
the standards applicable to a vessel flagged in the Union.
Where the state granting the flag during the period that the vessel was off the Union fishing fleet
register became recognised under Union law as a non-cooperating state with regard to combating,
deterring and eliminating IUU fishing, or as a state allowing for non-sustainable exploitation of living
marine resources, such fishing authorisation shall only be granted if it is established that the vessel's
fishing operations ceased and the owner took immediate action to remove the vessel from the register
of that state.
10. The Commission shall arrange for independent ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of each protocol to
a Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement, and make them available to the European Parliament
and to the Council in good time before it submits to the Council a recommendation to authorise the
opening of negotiations for a successor protocol. A summary of such evaluations shall be made publicly
available.
Article 32. Financial assistance
1. The Union shall provide financial assistance to third countries through Sustainable fisheries
partnership agreements in order to:
(a) support part of the cost of access to the fisheries resources in third country waters; the part of the
cost of access to the fisheries resources to be paid by Union vessel owners shall be assessed for each
Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement or a Protocol to it and shall be fair, non-discriminatory and
commensurate with the benefits provided through the access conditions;
Page 126
(b) establish the governance framework, including the development and maintenance of the necessary
scientific and research institutions, promote consultation processes with interest groups, and
monitoring, control and surveillance capability and other capacity building items relating to the
development of a sustainable fisheries policy driven by the third country. Such financial assistance shall
be conditional upon the achievement of specific results and complementary to and consistent with the
development projects and programmes implemented in the third country in question.
2. Under each Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement, the financial assistance for sectoral
support shall be decoupled from payments for access to fisheries resources. The Union shall require
the achievement of specific results as a condition for payments under the financial assistance, and shall
closely monitor progress.
Page 127
Annex J: Shrimp/prawn fisheries in Kenya and Tanzania

While the focus of this report, as noted in the introduction, is on highly migratory species, as
background to consideration by the ex ante evaluations of possible FPAs/Protocols between the EU
and both Kenya and Tanzania and whether they would be ‘tuna agreements’ or ‘mixed’ agreements,
some brief text is also provided on prawn/shrimp fisheries in the region (hereafter referred to as prawn
fisheries). Text is based on Macfadyen (2012), and an analysis and benchmarking in that report of
prawn fisheries in both countries against the Marine Stewardship Council standard for certification.
The marine environment described in section 1.1, along with the presence of shallow offshore banks
and a number of rivers that flow into the sea along the coast bringing with them nutrient-rich sediments,
has a strong influence on the productivity of the prawn fisheries – prawn fishing is highly concentrated
in estuarine and coastal areas close to river outflows in both countries. In Tanzania the prawn fishery is
most strongly concentrated in the Rufiji delta but also exists at the outflows of other rivers such as the
Pangani, Ruvu, Wami, Mbwemkuru, Matandu, Lukuledi and Ruvuma. In Kenya, the main prawn fishery
is concentrated in the Malindi-Ugwana bay at the outflow of the Tana and Sabaki rivers.
In Kenya the shallow water prawn fishery is made up of five principal species as shown below:
 Penaeus indicus – the Indian banana prawn (68 % of catch by weight);
 Metapenaeus monoceros – speckled shrimp (14 % of catch by weight);
 Penaeus semisulcatus – brown tiger prawn (10 % of catch by weight);
 Penaeus monodon – black tiger prawn (7 % of catch by weight); and
 Penaeus japonicas – kruma prawn (1 % of catch by weight).
Deepwater prawn species include Heteropcarpus woodmansonii, Melicertus marginatus, Sqilla mantis,
and Panaeopsis balsii, but are not well researched and stock status is not understood.
In Tanzania four prawn species are considered as target species based on the sum of quantities
recorded by recent trawl surveys:
 Penaeus indicus – the Indian banana prawn (59 % of catch by weight);
 Metapenaeus monoceros – speckled shrimp (24 % of catch by weight);
 Penaeus semisulcatus – brown tiger prawn (12 % of catch by weight); and
 Penaeus monodon – black tiger prawn (5 % of catch by weight).
Both countries have prawn management plans in place, but in both cases these plans are weak and
require improvement. The development of these plans took place because of conflict between industrial
and artisanal vessels, and following recognition of concerns of stock status. The industrial fishery in
Tanzania has been closed since 2007, and in Kenya there is now only one industrial vessel operating
following a partial opening of the fishery following a previous ban on industrial activity. Approval of the
introduction of any EU vessels to fish in either country can be considered highly unlikely given potential
opposition by domestic small-scale fishermen, and by domestic industrial interests, which would seek to
be allowed back into the fishery before foreign vessels once stocks have improved, i.e. there is almost
certainly no ‘surplus resources’ that could be exploited by EU vessels.
With regard to stock status, recent stock assessment surveys suggest that stocks in both countries may
be improving with the ban/control of industrial fishing. However, stock recovery is slower than expected,
and coupled with low levels of regulation and control over small-scale vessels, suggests that artisanal
fisheries are also having considerable, and potentially negative, impacts on stock status. Of particular
concern in both countries is that there are no clear harvest control rules in place, and no quantifiable
specification of reference or trigger points that would then invoke specific management measures.
Page 128
These comments for the prawn resource (for example, potential over-exploitation, poor control and
management, potential conflict between industrial and small-scale vessels, and priority for domestic
industrial vessels if stocks recover) are thought to be equally applicable for demersal fisheries in both
countries, suggesting that any future FPAs/Protocols between the EU and Kenya/Tanzania would need
to focus exclusively on highly migratory species.
Page 129
Annex K: Additional information on stock biology and status

Skipjack tuna. Skipjack tuna generally form large schools, often in association with other tunas of similar
size such as juveniles of yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna. The tagging recoveries provide evidence of
rapid, large-scale movements of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean, thus supporting the current
assumption of a single stock for the Indian Ocean. Skipjack tuna live about seven years, reaching maturity
at about two years. It is highly likely that most of skipjack tuna taken by fisheries in the Indian Ocean have
already reproduced. It shows high fecundity and spawns opportunistically throughout the year in the whole
inter-equatorial Indian Ocean (north of 20° south, with surface temperature greater than 24°C) when
conditions are favourable.
The Kobe plot for skipjack is provided below. In this type of plot, annual values of the indicators of
overfishing and overfished status are plotted against a background divided into four sectors, given by
the values of the target reference points. This allows for a quick visualisation of the status of the stock
and its potential trend. For example, if the stock is too low (Biomass (B) less than the optimal, Bmsy)
and the fishing intensity too high (F greater than the optimal value Fmsy) the stock is in the red
quadrant, indicating that is overfished and still subject to overfishing. The expected trend of the stock
depends on the fishing intensity or mortality (F): if it is above Fmsy, a stock is expected drift into the red
zone, if F is less than Fmsy, the stock is expected to move towards the green zone (i.e. to recover)
gradually.
The Kobe plot is based on the 2012 assessment. Circles indicate the trajectory of the point estimates
for the spawning biomass (SB) ratio158 and F/FMSY ratio for each year 1950-2011.
Yellowfin tuna. Yellowfin is a species distributed mainly in the tropical and subtropical oceanic waters
of all the three major oceans, where it forms large schools. Tagging experiments provide evidence of
large movements of yellowfin tuna, thus supporting the assumption of a single stock for the Indian
Ocean. Yellowfin tuna live about nine years, maturing at three to five years at a size of 100 cm.
Spawning occurs mainly from December to March in the equatorial area (0-10° south), with the main
158 The ratio of the current biomass of the fish spawning compared to the optimal spawning biomass at the MSY level
Page 130
spawning grounds west of 75° east. Secondary spawning grounds exist off Sri Lanka and in the
Mozambique Channel and in the eastern Indian Ocean off Australia.
Newly recruited fish are primarily caught by the purse seine fishery on floating objects. Males are
predominant in the catches of larger fish at sizes great than 140 cm (this is also the case in other
oceans). The sizes exploited in the Indian Ocean range from 30 cm to 180 cm fork length. Smaller fish
(juveniles) form mixed schools with skipjack tuna and juvenile bigeye tuna and are mainly limited to
surface tropical waters, while larger fish are found in surface and sub-surface waters. Intermediate age
yellowfin tuna are seldom taken in the industrial fisheries, but are abundant in some artisanal fisheries,
mainly in the Arabian Sea.
The Kobe plot for yellowfin tuna is provided below. Blue circles indicate the trajectory of the point
estimates for the SB ratio and F ratio for each year 1972–2010. The two panels represent results
obtained with two models based on different assumptions: Multifan-CL: a model that integrates catch,
effort, size-frequency and tagging, on the left; and ASPM: that uses estimated ages, catch and effort,
on the right.
Overfished
2.0
F>Fmsy
Overfishing
1.5
Flim
F/Fmsy
F=Fmsy
Ftarg
1.0
2010
2009
0.5
2005
F<Fmsy
1995
2000
Blim Btarg
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

SB<SBmsy SB=SBmsy SB>SBmsy
SB/SBmsy
Bigeye tuna. Bigeye tuna inhabit the tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian
Oceans in waters down to around 300 m. Juveniles frequently school at the surface underneath floating
objects alongside yellowfin and skipjack tunas. Association with floating objects appears less common
as bigeye grow older. Tagging data supports the current assumption of a single stock for the Indian
Ocean. The range of the stock (as indicated by the distribution of catches) includes tropical areas,
where reproduction occurs, and temperate waters which are believed to be feeding grounds. The
lifespan is about 15 years, and they mature when they are three years old at a size of 100 cm. The
spawning season is from December to January and also in June in the eastern Indian Ocean.
The Kobe plot for bigeye tuna is provided below The Kobe plot presents the trajectories for the range of
12 plausible model options included in the formulation of the final management advice (grey lines with
the black point representing the terminal year of 2012). The trajectory of the median of the 12 plausible
model options (purple points) is also presented. The biomass (Blim) and fishing mortality limit (Flim)
reference points are also presented.
Page 131
Albacore tuna. Albacore are a temperate tuna living mainly in the mid-oceanic gyres of the Pacific,
Indian and Atlantic oceans. In the Pacific and Atlantic oceans there is a clear separation of southern
and northern stocks associated with the oceanic gyres that are typical of these areas. In the Indian
Ocean, there is probably only one southern stock, distributed from 5° north to 40° south, because there
is no northern gyre.
Albacore is a highly migratory species and individuals swim large distances during their lifetime. Pre-
adults (2-5-year-old albacore) appear to be more migratory than adults. It has been observed on all
albacore stocks that juveniles concentrate in cold temperate areas (for instance in a range of sea-
surface temperatures between 15° C and 18° C), and this has been confirmed in the Indian Ocean,
where albacore tuna are more abundant north of the subtropical convergence (an area where these
juvenile were heavily fished by driftnet fisheries during the late 1980s). It appears that juvenile albacore
show a continuous geographical distribution in the Atlantic and Indian oceans in the north edge of the
subtropical convergence. Albacore may move across the boundary between the convention areas of
ICCAT and IOTC.
It is likely that the adult Indian Ocean albacore tunas do yearly circular counter-clockwise migrations
following the surface currents of the south tropical gyre between their tropical spawning and southern
feeding zones. In the Atlantic Ocean, large numbers of juvenile albacore are caught by the South
African pole-and-line fishery (catching about 10 000 t yearly) and it has been hypothesised that these
juveniles may be taken from a mixture of fish born in the Atlantic (northeast of Brazil) and from the
Indian Ocean. For the purposes of stock assessments, one pan-ocean stock has been assumed.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of albacore in the Indian Ocean but it appears, based on
biological studies and on fishery data, that the main spawning grounds are located east of Madagascar
between 15° south and 25° south during the 4th and 1st quarters of each year. Like other tunas, adult
albacore spawn in warm waters (surface waters warmer than 25° C).
The Kobe plot for albacore tuna is provided below. The shaded areas around the last point in the
trajectory represent the uncertainty on the values for the most recent year in the analysis.
Page 132
Swordfish. The swordfish range covers the entire Indian Ocean down to 50º south. Juvenile swordfish
are commonly found in tropical and subtropical waters and migrate to higher latitudes as they mature.
Large, solitary adult swordfish are most abundant at 15º south to 35º south. Males are more common in
tropical and subtropical waters. By contrast with tunas, swordfish is not a gregarious species, although
densities increase in areas of oceanic fronts and seamounts. A recent genetic study (Muths et al.,
2013) did not reveal any structure within the Indian Ocean with the techniques used, yielding support to
the single population hypothesis. Spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (catch rate trends) indicate
the potential for localised depletion of swordfish in the Indian Ocean.
The lifespan of swordfish may exceed 30 years, with females maturing at 6-7 years and males after 1-3
years. They may spawn as frequently as once every three days over a period of several months in
spring. Known spawning grounds and seasons are tropical waters of the Southern hemisphere from
October to April, including in the vicinity of Réunion Island.
The Kobe plot for swordfish is provided below. This result is based on an analysis of the data for the
entire Indian Ocean, assuming it constitutes a single stock. Confidence areas around the last point in
the trajectory reflects the uncertainty around the most recent value.
Page 133
Black marlin. Little is known about the biology of the black marlin in the Indian Ocean. Black marlin is
a highly migratory, large oceanic apex predator that inhabits tropical and subtropical waters of the
Indian and Pacific oceans. Some rare individuals have been reported in the Atlantic Ocean but there is
no information to indicate the presence of a breeding stock in this area. Black marlin inhabits oceanic
surface waters above the thermocline and typically near land masses, islands and coral reefs; however,
rare excursions to mesopelagic waters down to depths of 800 m are known. It is thought to associate
with schools of small tuna, one of its primary food sources. No information on stock structure is
currently available in the Indian Ocean; thus for the purposes of assessment, one pan-ocean stock is
assumed. Long-distance migrations at least in the eastern Indian Ocean (two black marlins tagged in
Australia were caught off the east Indian coast and in Sri Lanka) support a single stock hypothesis. It is
known that black marlin forms dense nearshore spawning aggregations, making this species vulnerable
to exploitation even by small-scale fisheries. Spatial heterogeneity in stock indicators (CPUE trends) for
other billfish species indicates that there is potential for localised depletion. In the Pacific (Australia), the
species is known to live for up to 11-12 years. No spawning grounds have been identified in the Indian
Ocean.
Blue marlin. Blue marlin is a solitary species and prefers the warm offshore surface waters; it is scarce
in waters less than 100 m in depth or close to land. It lives up to 28 years, reaching maturity after two to
four years. No spawning grounds have been identified in the Indian Ocean. No information on stock
structure is currently available in the Indian Ocean; thus for the purposes of assessment, one pan-
ocean stock is assumed. Tagging off western Australia revealed potential intermixing of Indian Ocean
and Pacific stocks: one individual was caught in the Pacific Indonesian waters. However, spatial
heterogeneity in stock indicators (catch–per–unit–effort trends) for other billfish species indicates that
there is potential for localised depletion.
Striped marlin. Striped marlin is a large oceanic apex predator that inhabits tropical and sub-tropical
waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans. Its distribution is different from other marlins in that it prefers
more temperate or cooler waters. However, in the Indian Ocean it is common in tropical zones: off the
east African coast (0-10º south), the south and western Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, and north-
western Australian waters. Several transoceanic migrations were reported in the Indian Ocean (the
longest is from Kenya to Australia). Therefore a single stock hypothesis seems the most appropriate for
stock assessment and management. It lives approximately 10 years, reaching maturity at 2-3 years old.
It usually spawns in the vicinity of oceanic islands, seamounts or coastal areas, associated with local
Page 134
increases in primary productivity. In the Indian Ocean, larvae of this species have been recorded off the
Somali coast, around Reunion and Mauritius and off northwestern Australia.
Indo-Pacific sailfish. Indo-Pacific sailfish is found throughout the tropical and subtropical regions of
the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It is mainly found in surface waters above the thermocline, close to
coasts and islands in depths from 0 m to 200 m. Indo-Pacific sailfish is a highly migratory species and
renowned for its speed and (by recreational fishers) for its jumping behaviour. The stock structure of
Indo-Pacific sailfish in the Indian Ocean is uncertain: apparently there are local reproductively isolated
stocks. At least one stock was reported in the Persian Gulf with no or very little intermixing with open
Indian Ocean stocks. However outside of the Gulf no stock differentiation has been determined; thus for
the purposes of assessment, one pan-ocean stock is assumed. However, spatial heterogeneity in stock
indicators (catch–per–unit–effort trends) for other billfish species indicates that there is potential for
localised depletion.
Females live up to 11–13 years; males up to seven-eight years. Spawning in Indian waters occurs
between December to June with a peak in February and June. In subtropical waters of the southern
hemisphere spawning is associated with warmer months: in Mozambique Channel and around Réunion
Island a high percentage of ripe females occur in December.
Page 135
Annex L: Additional information on the location of catches, by species and fleet type
Figure 8.1: average annual catches of yellowfin tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas
Source: IOTC
Notes: FS: purse seine fishing on free-swimming schools; LS: purse seine fishing in association with floating
objects; BB: baitboat; LL: longline; OT: gillnet and other fleets not elsewhere included. The catches of fleets for
which the flag countries do not report detailed time and area data to the IOTC are shown within the area of the
countries concerned, in particular driftnets from Iran, gillnet and longline fishery of Sri Lanka, and coastal
fisheries of Indonesia. However, in reality, these fleets might operate far from the EEZs of their flag States.
Figure 8.2: average annual catches of skipjack tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas
Source: IOTC
Page 136
Figure 8.3: average annual catches of bigeye tuna for the period 2005-2009, by 5º areas
Source: IOTC
Figure 8.4: distribution of annual catches of albacore tuna for 2010, by 5º areas
Source: IOTC
Notes: PS: purse seine fishing LL: longline; DRFT: drifting gillnet (not operational after 1991); OTHR: Gears not
elsewhere included.
Page 137
Figure 8.5: distribution of annual catches of swordfish for 2009, by 5º areas

Source: IOTC
Notes: ELL: longline effort identified as targeting swordfish; LL: longline; OT: gillnet and other fleets not
elsewhere included. The catches of fleets for which the flag countries do not report detailed time and area data to
the IOTC are shown within the area of the countries concerned, in particular driftnets from Iran, gillnet and
longline fishery of Sri Lanka, and coastal fisheries of Indonesia. However, in reality, these fleets might operate far
from the EEZs of their flag States
Page 138

Report Tuna Fisheries Western Indian Ocean - en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report Tuna Fisheries Western Indian Ocean - en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Framework contract MARE/2011/01

Lot 3 – Retrospective and prospective evaluations on the

Review of tuna fisheries in the western Indian

COFREPECHE: 32 rue de Paradis, 75010 Paris, France. info@cofrepeche.fr

Version: Final report - Report ref.: WIOR01D

Graeme Macfadyen Poseidon (team leader)

Peer review John Pearce MRAG

Proof reading Graeme Macfadyen POSEIDON (team leader)

Editing Anna Mees MRAG

Approval Tim Huntington POSEIDON

Validation Vincent Defaux COFREPECHE

L’océan Indien occidental – caractéristiques environnementales

Pêches thonières dans l’océan Indien occidental

Estado de las poblaciones de atunes y especies asociadas en el océano Índico occidental

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ iii

3.1.5 The specific case of Somalia .......................................................................................................29

5.1.3 From the pole-and-line fleet .........................................................................................................71

FIGURES AND TABLES

Tanganyika) and Tanzania Island (Zanzibar).

Figure 0.1: geographical coverage of the IOTC

Figure 0.2: EEZs of selected countries in the WIO

1 The western Indian Ocean – coastal and marine environment, aquatic

1.1 Coastal and marine environment

9 Beal and Donohue, 2013.

13 http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS (accessed 16 November 2013)

2 Management and conservation of tuna and related species in the western

2.1 Fisheries management organisations and related management measures

2.1.4 Southern African Development Community (SADC)

24 As part of attempts to obtain Marine Stewardship Council certification

2.3 External support for improvements in management and conservation

27 http://www.spfif.org/ (accessed 10 October 2013).

3 Access to fishing zones in the region

3.1 Types of access

29 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013).

comm., 23 September 2013.

3.1.3 Bilateral intergovernmental agreements

37 http://transparentsea.co/images/d/d3/List_of_licensed_fishing_vessels_Seychelles.pdf (accessed 7 October 2013).

3.2 Costs of access

Table 3.3: summary of fishing agreements in force in the Seychelles (non-EU)

Country with Type of

47 MRAG et al., 2013

48 http://cref-comores.org/pubs/Protocoles/ (accessed 7 October 2013).

comm., 23 September 2013.

4 The tuna fishery in the western Indian Ocean

4.1 WIO catches in the context of global tuna fisheries

Figure 4.1: global tuna catches 2000-2011 (in millions of tonnes)

4.2 The purse seine fishery

60 ORTHONGEL, pers. comm., 9 October 2013.

4.2.3 Purse seine catches by species

4.3 The longline fishery

62 Ministerio das Pescas, pers. comm., 27 October 2013

Table 4.8: longline catches in 2011 in the WIO, in tonnes

4.4 The pole and line fishery

4.4.2 Evolution of effort

65 Typically wooden or fibreglass vessels.

4.4.3 Pole-and-line catches, by species

66 Fisheries Management Agency, 2013

4.5 The gillnet fishery

67 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2013.

4.5.2 Catches, by species

4.6 The handline fishery